










i^V 







C^^^r^ 




^ ■^<^ 






THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 



Jj^)^° 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

NEW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO • D.'aXAS 
ATLANTA • SAN FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN & CO., Limitkd 

LONDON • BOMBAY • CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE MACMILLAN CO. OP CANADA, Ltd. 

TORONTO 



The 

Disruption of Virginia 



\ BY 

JAMES c. McGregor, ph.d. 



^ 









l^ibb:^ry''^\| 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
1922 

All rights reserved 



FEINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OP AMERICA 






U?) Mi2. 



Copyright, 1922, 
By the MACMILLAN COMPANY. 



Set up and printed. Published October, 1922. 



Press of 

J. J. Little & Ives Company 

New York, U. S. A. 



To 
MY FATHER 



PREFACE 

This book was written on the assumption that the 
admission of a new state into the Union is always a 
matter of some historical importance, and that the 
facts of such admission should be made available for 
the reader of history. 

In the case of West Virginia prejudice and par- 
tisanship have tended to obscure the exact truth, and 
"The Disruption of Virginia" is an attempt to pre- 
sent an unbiased account of the strange course of 
events in the history of Virginia from the time of 
Lincoln's election to the Presidency to the month of 
June, 1863, when West Virginia was formally ad- 
mitted into the Union. 

The author has no grudges to satisfy and no patron 
to please. If he seems harsh in his opinions and con- 
clusions regarding the irregular and inexpedient meth- 
ods employed in cutting off the western counties of 
Virginia and forming them into a new state it is due 
to the conviction that an unnecessary wrong was com- 
mitted, a wrong that helped not at all in Lincoln's 
prosecution of the Civil War. He is convinced that 
not only was the act unconstitutional, but that it was 
not desired by more than a small minority of the peo- 
ple of the new state. The President and Congress 

vii 



VUl PREFACE 

were grateful to the Union men in north-western Vir- 
ginia for their efforts to keep their section out of the 
Southern Confederacy, and as a reward consented to 
their organizing a new state, the United States Con- 
stitution to the contrary notwithstanding. 

It is true that sectionalism had prevailed in Vir- 
ginia for many years, and that the most widely sepa- 
rated parts were entirely out of sympathy with each 
other. Possibly the end has justified the means and 
Virginia as a whole is happier divided than united. 
With that the author has no concern. He is only 
interested in presenting the facts as he has found them. 

The chapters dealing with the Richmond Convention, 
the anti-war sentiment in western Virginia, and the 
Wheeling Conventions were presented to the authori- 
ties of the University of Pennsylvania in 1913 as a 
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree 
of Doctor of Philosophy. Acting upon the advice 
of Prof. John Bach McMaster the author wrote the 
chapters on early sectional difficulties in Virginia and 
searched further for new material. In the Department 
of Archives and History of the state of West Virginia, 
at Charleston, were discovered a number of letters 
touching upon the situation in the western counties 
in 1861-3; and, what was of greater importance, the 
original manuscript of the first constitutional con- 
vention of the state was found. 

All this new material was confirmatory, and satis- 
fied the author that his original conclusions were cor- 
rect. On almost the last day of the constitutional 



PEEFACE IX 

convention of November, 1861, according to the manu- 
script, a motion was made that the records of the con- 
vention be printed. One of the delegates opposed 
this motion for the reason that the discussion had re- 
vealed so plainly the opposition of the people of West 
Virginia both to the North and to the new state that 
the publication of the debates might interfere with 
the admission of the state. His opinion prevailed and 
to this day the record remains unprinted, although 
its importance is unquestioned. 

Prof. McMaster and Dean Herman V. Ames of the 
University of Pennsylvania have read the manuscript 
and made some helpful suggestions. The author takes 
this occasion of thanking them for the interest they 
have shown. For any errors that may appear and 
the opinions expressed he must take the full re- 
sponsibility. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

"Sectionalism in Virginia," by Chas. H. Ambler (Chi- 
cago, 1910) covers the period from 1776 to 1861, and 
treats in some detail the subject matter included in the 
first six chapters of "The Disruption of Virginia." 

"The Rending of Virginia," by Granville D. Hall 
(Glencoe, Illinois, 1902) is a rambling account of the 
secession of Virginia and the formation of West Vir- 
ginia. The author was a participant in the Wheeling 
Conventions and harbored a bitter resentment toward 
the eastern Virginians. Hence his book is not merely 
worthless as history — it is misleading and harmful. 

The secondary works mentioned above are the only 
ones of any importance quoted in "The Disruption of 
Virginia." 

The source material comes principally from news- 
papers, state records, and private letters, found in 
the Historical Library at Richmond, Virginia; the 
Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. ; the State 
Library, Charleston, W. Va. ; and the Public Libraries 
of Wheeling, W. Va., Pittsburgh, Pa., and Philadel- 
phia, Pa. 

Mrs. Letty Carlile Strader, daughter of John S. 

xi 



^" BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Carlile, permitted the author to use her father's pri- 
vate correspondence. 

Other information was gathered from persons who 
remember the state of affairs in their communities dur- 
ing the early part of the Civil War. 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

I Geographical Features 1 

II Population 7 

III Social and Economic Divergencies . . 16 

IV The Opening of the Breach .... 27 

V The Constitutional Convention of * 

1829-30 35 

VI The Progress of Sectionalism ... 49 

VII Western Virginia at the Outbreak of 

the Civil War 66 

VIII The Preliminaries of the Convention . 87 

IX The Virginia Convention of 1861 . . 124 

X The Beginning of the New-State Move- 
ment 182 

XI The May Convention 192 

XII The June Convention 206 

XIII West Virginia Before Congress . . . 224 

XIV The West Virginia Ordinance . . . 231 

XV War Sentiment 244 

XVI The Constitutional Convention . . . 257 

xiii 



XIV CONTENTS 



XVII Irregular Congressional Elections . . 278 

XVIII The West Virginia Bill in the U. S. 

Senate 286 

XIX West Virginia the Thirty-sixth State 

in the Union 302 



THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 




THE MAP OK VI1!<:1> 
Rffore the Division of 



THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 



CHAPTER 1 



GEOGRAPHICAIi FEATURES 



When nature erected a mountain barrier between 
eastern and western Virginia there was laid the foun- 
dation of an intra-state dispute which ended only when 
the two antagonistic sections were under the authority 
of different state governments. It is but slight exag- 
geration to affirm that the Alleghany Mountains were 
responsible for all the quarrels between the cismontane 
and the transmontane sections of Virginia. Writers 
who stress racial differences as the cause of the diffi- 
culties which arose between the Virginians forget that 
almost every state in the Union was compelled to go 
through a process of race harmonization, and in every 
case intimate contact brought about race amalgama- 
tion. It was this lack of personal contact which pre- 
vented a good understanding between the English in- 
habitants of eastern Virginia and the German, Scotch- 
Irish, and English inhabitants of western Virginia. At 
any time previous to the Civil War a good system of 
canals and railroads would have gone far toward bring- 

1 



/ 

2 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

ing the two parts of the Old Dominion more closely 
together; but the Richmond Junto was blind to the 
importance of such improvements and the contest of 
1861 dawned with eastern and western Virginia as 
widely apart in manners, customs, and sympathies as 
though thousands of miles intervened between them. 

A survey of the chief geographical features of Vir- 
ginia reveals the fact that the surface of the state is 
divided into two unequally inclined planes and a 
centrally located valley.^ Further subdivisions 
marked out by earlier historians were as follows: The 
eastern plane naturally fell into two parts, the Pied- 
mont and the Tidewater division, the western plane 
into the Alleghany highlands, the Cumberland plateau, 
and the Ohio Valley section. The valley lying between 
the two mountain ranges which run parallel across the 
northern part of the present state of Virginia is the 
famous Shenandoah Valley. While the actual bounda- 
ries of these divisions are of course purely arbitrary, 
yet we may easily comprehend what is meant when we 
hear the terms Tidewater, Piedmont, Valley, Trans- 
montane, etc. The Fredericksburg, Richmond and 
Petersburg Railroad may be said to divide, roughly, 
the Tidewater from the Piedmont. The latter lies in a 
right angle, with the fall-line of the Atlantic rivers — 
the James, the Potomac, and the Roanoke — as its per- 
pendicular, and the Blue Ridge as its hypothenuse.^ 
The Valley has a length of approximately three hun- 

* Ambler, "Sectionalism in Virginia," p. 1. 
'Ibid. 



GEOGRAPHICAL FEATURES 3 

dred miles and an average width of from twenty-five to 
thirty miles. It forms a part of the Appalachian Val- 
ley system and opens up in but two places, namely, at 
the head waters of the James River to the east and at 
the head waters of the Kanawha River to the south- 
west. A more detailed description would place a middle 
section between the Tidewater and the Piedmont, an- 
other subdivision between the Piedmont and the Valley, 
and on the extreme western border an Appalachian 
section including counties which are geographically 
distinct from the Valley counties.^ The areas of these 
various subdivisions may be approximated somewhat as 
follows: Tidewater, 11,350 square miles; Piedmont, 
12,470 square miles; Blue Ridge, 1,230 square miles; 
Valley, 13,550 square miles ; Appalachian, 5,720 square 
miles. 

The surface of West Virginia presents many difficul- 
ties for the topographer. Scarcely any scheme of di- 
vision could be created which he would be willing to 
accept as accurate. The general slope is from the 
Alleghanies to the Ohio River, but exceptions must be 
noted even here, for north of the Little Kanawha no 
considerable stream flows into the Ohio. South of 
a line drawn from Pocahontas County to Tyler County 
all the rivers flow into the Ohio. North of this line the 
waterfall is away from the Ohio toward the Monon- 
gahela and the Potomac rivers. The usual classifica- 
tion of W^est Virginia into the Alleghany Highlands, 
the Cumberland Plateau, and the Ohio Valley region is 

* Alleghany, Bath, and Highland. 



4 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

unsatisfactory for purposes of accuracy, but will per- 
haps serve the purpose of the historian. 

A grouping of counties according to similarity of 
natural features would require almost as many divisions 
as there are counties. Scarcely any two contiguous 
counties present the same surface peculiarities, and in 
a number of instances adjoining counties are walled off 
by mountain spurs which form complete barriers. 
Speaking roughly, the Eastern Panhandle counties may 
be said to belong, geographically, to the great Valley 
of Virginia and form a natural division. Shut off from 
the remainder of the state by the Alleghany Mountains, 
the people of this region are turned toward Virginia 
and Maryland. This area is a little more than 3,700 
square miles and includes a district scarcely surpassed 
for fertility of soil and natural resources. The rivers 
empty into the Potomac and consequently the commerce 
of this district is carried on with the cities of Baltimore 
and Washington. 

To the southwest is a group of mountain counties, 
including Preston, Tucker, Randolph, Greenbrier, 
Monroe, and parts of Hardy and Pendleton. Beyond 
the fact that these counties lie near together and are 
in the same general mountain division, they have few 
features in common. Turning toward the north and 
west, we have at the extreme limit of the state that 
strange projection known as the Northern Panhandle. 
Belonging naturally to Pennsylvania, it is the sole 
remnant of that portion of Pennsylvania which Virginia 
has claimed from early times. The counties included 



GEOGRAPHICAL FEATURES 5 

in it, Hancock, Brooke, Ohio, and Marshall, present 
a uniformity of geographical features. All border on 
the Ohio River, communication among them is easy and 
natural, and as a result there has been developed a 
similarity of social and political life unequaled by any 
other portion of the state. South of the Panhandle 
are Wetzel, Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, and Jackson 
counties, possessing enough features in common to be 
classed as a group. All have frontage on the Ohio 
River and the surface of each county is rough and un- 
even. South, to the interior, we come to a group of 
counties in the Kanawha Valley, comprising all or parts 
of Mercer, Monroe, Greenbrier, Raleigh, Fayette, 
Kanawha, Putnam, and Mason. A glance at the map 
will reveal the fact that their chief and almost only 
feature in common is the Great Kanawha River, which, 
rising in Ashe County, North Carolina, drains an area 
of 10,000 square miles before it finally empties its 
waters into the Ohio. Every possible variety of sur- 
face is presented in this region, which is the despair of 
the topographer. To the south of the Kanawha Val- 
ley there is a group of counties, Boone, Cabell, Wayne, 
Logan, Wyoming, and McDowell. These stretch along 
the southern part of the state from the Ohio River to 
the border of Virginia and include some of the wildest 
and most isolated spots to be found anywhere in the 
United States. The Monongahela River and its tribu- 
taries enclose an important group of counties. Less 
rugged and more accessible than the counties of the 
south and east, this district was settled very early and 



6 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

plays a part in the stirring drama of 1861-63 only a 
little less important than that of the Northern Pan- 
handle counties. MonongaHa, Marion, Taylor, Bar- 
bour, Harrison, Lewis, Doddridge, Ritchie, Wirt, Cal- 
houn, Gilmer, Roane, Braxton, Upshur, Webster, 
Nicholas, and Clay, the counties in this group, are 
drained wholly or in part by the Monongahela river 
system. 

If it be time, as Washington once said, that people's 
faces are naturally turned in the direction of the flow of 
their rivers, then we may comprehend why misunder- 
standings were constantly arising, not only between 
the eastern and western Virginians but also between 
the inhabitants of the smaller subdivisions of the old 
state. East of the Blue Ridge the people follow their 
rivers to the east or the south; the western Virginians 
reached out to the north or to the southwest. The j 
commercial interests of the two great parts of Virginia I 
were so dissimilar that when the war broke out in 1861 ! 
it was found that the two sections of Virginia had little 
commercial dependence upon each other. The division 
of the state in 1863 is of little importance to any one 
but the historian. 



CHAPTER II 



POPULATION 



A DETAILED accouiit of the movements of population 
in Virginia would carry us far beyond our province, so 
it will be sufficient to remind the reader that the Eng- 
lish settlers made their way up the Atlantic rivers and 
gradually extended their frontiers until they had 
reached the base of the Alleghany Mountains. This 
had taken place long before the Revolutionary War. 
The population of Virginia at this time, while more 
or less homogeneous, was divided into distinct classes 
of society, the pioneers of the western section being 
regarded as peasantry by the Tidewater patricians. 
Before the beginning of the nineteenth century, how- 
ever, the inhabitants of the Piedmont district had de- 
veloped a civilization very much like that of the earlier 
settled portions of the state. On all questions affect- 
ing their social and political life, the people of the 
Tidewater and the Piedmont were one. Not so the 
dwellers in the Shenandoah Valley. Separated from the 
rest of the colony by the Blue Ridge, they developed 
a social and economic life which differed considerably 
from that which prevailed on the other side of the 
mountains. An influx of Germans and Scotch-Irish, 

7 



8 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

beginning in 1720, was responsible in part for this 
variation in customs and manners. Each race had its 
own little settlements scattered through the numerous 
valleys, and there was scarcely any communication be- 
tween these settlements. So rarely did these people 
come into contact with the outside world and so rapidly 
did the Germans enter the Valley that it became neces- 
sary to translate the laws into the German language. 
It is easy, however, to overestimate the proportion o£ 
alien settlers in this district. Certain it is that a 
majority of the Valley inhabitants came up from the 
older parts of the state along the Potomac River. 

The fact that the German settlers Anglicized their 
names soon after landing in Virginia has made it im- 
possible to do more than guess at the proportion of 
the population which they constituted. On the files 
of the Revolutionary War records few German names 
appear, which may show either that these immigrants 
were averse to fighting or that they preferred chang- 
ing their names into good English ones. When Wash- 
ington came to Winchester in 1747 as a young surveyor 
in the employ of Lord Fairfax the fact is recorded that 
there were great numbers of settlers — Germans, 
Scotch, Irish, and English, with a sprinkling of French 
Protestants — already preparing homes in the Valley.^ 

For fifty years the Valley grew, almost unnoticed by 

the older sections of the state. Its inhabitants turned 

their faces longingly to the west, but previous to the 

Revolution all progress in that direction was checked 

*Dandridge, "Historic Shepherdstown," p. 22, 



POPULATION 9 

by the Proclamation of 1763, which the officials of Vir- 
ginia, both clerical and secular, enforced with much 
zeal. In the light of later events it is just as well that 
migration to the west from the Valley was not permitted 
at this time, for if the Valley settlers had scattered 
themselves through the wilds of western Virginia they 
would have rendered far less service to their country 
in the Revolutionary War. 

It is impossible to trace with any degree of accuracy 
the movements of population in western Virginia. We 
know that the first white settlers made their abodes in 
the Eastern Panhandle probably about 1726, and that 
they were mainly Scotch, Welsh, and German.^ This 
movement along the Potomac and its tributaries was 
an easy and natural transition and so agreeably were 
these pioneers impressed with their surroundings that 
they were contented to remain in the Valley, and thus 
did not penetrate beyond the mountains into the wilder- 
ness for many years. Thus up to the middle of the 
eighteenth century no white settlers, so far as we are 
aware, were to be found in the present boundaries of 
West Virginia. Between 1750 and 1800 small isolated 
settlements began to dot the borders of the state ; but 
the names of these settlers and their exact location 
form a matter yet to be determined by research. Emi- 
gration from the north to West Virginia was through 
Pennsylvania down the Ohio River or up the Monon- 
gahela and its tributaries. The movement was gradual 

* Third Biennial Report of State Department of Archives and 
History — West Virginia, 1911, p. 15. 



10 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

and the settlements so scattered that as late as 1787 
Jefferson's map of Virginia shows only two towjis, 
Wheeling and Parkersburg, in the northern part of 
western Virginia. After the Revolution the northern 
Panhandle grew rapidly and with the opening of the 
Mississippi River began to rival commercially the older 
settlements of the east. 

South of the Little Kanawha the people came mainly 
from Virginia and Maryland. By 1755 pioneers had 
pushed into the valley of the Greenbrier and spread 
out into all parts of the Great Kanawha Valley. The 
entire district west of the Blue Ridge was organized 
as Augusta County and the portion lying west of 
Hampshire County was commonly known as West Au- 
gusta. In 1769 Botetourt County was carved from 
the southern portion of Augusta, extending from the 
Blue Ridge to the Ohio River and separated from the 
older division by a line drawn along the 55th degree 
west longitude crossing Greenbrier County at the 
southern terminus of the Marlin Mountains and reach- 
ing across to Belleville.^ Fincastle County was or- 
ganized in 1772 and included all the present state of 
West Virginia lying between the Great Kanawha and 
the Big Sandy rivers. In 1776 West Augusta was di- 
vided into Ohio, Monongalia, and Yohogania counties, 
the latter disappearing when the extension of the Mason 
and Dixon line cut off all but a small portion from 
Virginia. The same year saw Fincastle County tri- 
sected into Kentucky, Washington, and Montgomery 
^ Report quoted on p. 9. 



POPULATION 11 

counties; and in 1777 Greenbrier County was con- 
structed out of the western part of Botetourt County. 
At the outbreak of the Revolution it was estimated that 
there were 30,000 white people within the boundaries 
of what is now West Virginia.^ In 1790 the first census 
disclosed a population of approximately 59,000 people 
in the nine counties lying wholly or in part in West 
Virginia. The increase of population from 1800 to 
the Civil War was marvelously rapid and every year 
found the western counties growing both in size and 
importance.^ The census of 1860 gave Virginia a -^^' 



population of 1,596,318, which made it the fifth state fffi^ 
in the Union. The native born of the people numbered // 5" pC 
97.81 per cent, and of the foreign born, approximately |^ "^ 
13 per cent were English, 47 per cent Irish, 30 per cent | | ^ 
German. Statistics showed that 399,700 Virginians 1\^ ^ 
had migrated to other states. Emigrants from other \%^ 
parts of the United States into Virginia numbered -^ 
68,341, half of whom were from three states, Pennsyl- 
vania, Ohio, and Maryland. 

Within the bounds of the present state of West Vir- 
ginia there were approximately 323,526 white persons 
and 28,256 slaves. In eastern Virginia the slave popu- 
lation numbered 490,865. A comparison of the ratios 
shows that in the newer sections of the state west of 
the Alleghanies free persons outnumbered the slaves 

^ Report quoted on page 9. 

^This is shown by the following figures: 1800, 78,593 popula- 
tion in thirteen counties; 1810, 105,469 in sixteen counties; 1820, 
136,768 in twenty-two counties; 1830, 176,924 in twenty-five 
counties; 1840, 224,537 in twenty-eight counties; 1850, 302,310 in 
forty counties. 



12 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

by more than ten to one, while east of the mountains 
the slaves constituted nearly one third of the entire 
population.^ Figures showing the distribution of the 
slave population in western Virginia in 1860 serve as 
a clue in determining the division of sentiment that 
existed when the question of slavery was under discus- 
sion. The northern Panhandle with a total population 
of 45,358 contained but 149 slaves. The close 
proximity of this section to Ohio and Pennsylvania 
made it difficult for the people to keep slaves if the 
latter desired to escape. Furthermore, the large for- 
eign-born population residing here were almost with- 
out exception opposed to the institution of slavery. 
In Ohio County at the outbreak of the Civil War there 
were 5,511 persons of foreign birth, principally Irish 
and German, thus constituting one seventh of the entire 
foreign-born population of the state. In contrast with 
this we have in the eastern Panhandle a population al- 
most entirely native-born, a people who for generations 
had been accustomed to regard slavery with tolerance 
if not always with entire approval. Thus on the great 
question of the day the people of the two Panhandle 
districts of western Virginia were as widely apart as the 
poles. Morgan, Jefferson, Berkeley, Hardy, and 
Hampshire counties, with a white population nearly 
equal to that of the northern Panhandle counties, con- 
tained 7,990 slaves or nearly one third of the entire 

* In 1860, 58,043 free colored persons were to be found in the 
state of Virginia. Of these but 2,709 lived in western Virginia. 
A strong antipathy appears to have existed in the latter section 
for free negroes. 



J 



POPULATION 13 

slave population of the western section. In only two 
other counties were there more than 1,000 slaves, 
Greenbrier with 1,525 and Monroe with 1,114. In the 
twelve counties bordering on the Ohio River there were 
but 1,247 slaves, while in the six counties drained by 
the Great Kanawha River the slave population num- 
bered 3,047. Turning to the north, we find that the 
counties in the Monongahela Valley held 1,336 slaves; 
of these eight counties Harrison contained almost as 
many negroes as the other seven counties combined. 

The truth now becomes apparent that slaves in west- 
ern Virginia were of little economic importance, while 
in the eastern part of the state they were almost the 
sine qua non of the prosperity of the planters of that 
I section.^ In 1870 Virginia produced 37,086,364 
( pounds of tobacco with the value of $7,154,770. West 
I Virginia the same year raised 2,046,452 pounds of 
I tobacco valued at $457,573. In the production of wool 
! West Virginia was in the lead, with a total of 1,593,541 
pounds to 877,110 pounds.^ Negroes are peculiarly 
fitted for the cultivation of tobacco, a plant which re- 
j quires the attention of many hands. In the raising of 
I sheep a large area is needed, but comparatively few 
I laborers. Hence the relative uselessness of the negro 
I slave in those counties where the soil was not fitted for 

I *In the decade between 1850-60 the increase of population by 
< sections is shown as follows: 

Tidewater Piedmont Valley Trans- Alleghany 

Whites 29% 15% 14% 26% 

Slaves 12% 6% 3% 11% 

-De Bow's Review, 1860, Vol. 28, p. 354. 
■United States Census Reports, 1870. 



14 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

the production of tobacco. In Virginia, with almost 
no exception, the counties producing the largest amount 
of tobacco contained the greatest number of slaves. In 
western Virginia we discover an apparently anomalous 
situation. Here the counties containing the greatest 
number of slaves raised little or no tobacco, while other 
counties with few slaves produced great quantities of 
the plant. Thus of the largest slaveholding counties 
Berkeley raised no tobacco, Greenbrier, 3,000 pounds 
annually, Hampshire, 53 pounds, and Jefferson, 6,700 
pounds. Monroe with 1,114 slaves raised in one year 
123,221 pounds, but slavery was evidently of less im- 
portance than we might think, for a decade later when 
the institution of slavery had been abolished the census 
reports show that Monroe produced almost identically 
the same amount of tobacco as in 1860. The largest 
tobacco-raising counties of West Virginia were, in I860, 
Jackson, Fayette, Kanawha, Mercer, Monroe, and Put- 
nam. In the first named there were but 55 slaves; in 
the second, 271 slaves ; in the third, 629 slaves ; in the 
fourth, 362 slaves; in the fifth, 1,114, and in the last, 
with a production of 472,765 pounds of tobacco, there 
were only 580 slaves. The irresistible conclusion is that 
in the counties west of the Alleghany Mountains the 
ordinary dependence of tobacco-raisers upon slaves did 
not exist; comparatively few persons were seriously 
affected when slavery was abolished and the strong de- 
fense of the institution was principally founded on 
sentimental reasons. In the first five years after the 
Civil War Virginia's output of tobacco was less than 



POPULATION 15 

one third of what it had been in 1860, while during the 
same period the production of tobacco in West Virginia 
increased by one third. No better proof could be de- 
sired that slavery played but little part in the economic 
life of the Western Virginians. 



CHAPTER III 

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIVERGENCIES 

The divergence of interest between the two sections 
is further illustrated by a comparison of the manu- 
facture of iron, West Virginia's tonnage being nearly 
three times as great as that of Virginia. The eastern 
section of the state was comparatively poor in natural 
resources, while the western counties were underlain 
with great quantities of iron, coal, oil, and other prod- 
ucts which lie beneath the surface of the earth. 

Church statistics reveal the fact that out of a total 
of one hundred and eighty-eight Episcopal churches 
in the state of Virginia one hundred and seventy-two 
were to be found in the eastern section ; fifty-six out of 
seventy-three Disciples churches were in the same part 
of the state ; sixteen out of seventeen Quaker churches ; 
ten of the twelve German Reformed congregations ; 
two of the three Jewish churches ; fifty-eight out of 
sixty-nine Lutheran churches ; nine hundred and sixty- 
two out of fourteen hundred and three Methodist 
churches; one hundred and ninety-seven out of two 
hundred and ninety Presbyterian congregations; and 
fourteen of the thirty-three Catholic churches were in 

16 



SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIYERGENCEES 17 

the east.^ The significant fact here is that the Estab- 
lished Church of Virginia maintained its traditional 
aloofness and made no efforts to establish new parishes 
in the western counties. In the latter section such 
churches as did exist were mainly evangelical. The at- 
titude of the western inhabitants of Virginia toward the 
Episcopal Church was not altogether unlike that of the 
Scotch Covenanters towards the members of the Estab- 
lished Church of England. Religiously, socially, and 
economically the people of West Virginia differed as 
widely from their eastern brethren as to-day the moun- 
taineer of the isolated sections of Kentucky or Ten- 
nessee differs from the dweller in Louisville or Mem- 
phis. 

"Commerce is the grand lever which sets in opera- 
tion and controls all important political movements." 
The truth of this is too well established to require 
exemplification. We might go a little further and say 
that absence of commercial relations is the grand lever 
which sets in motion many political misunderstandings. 
That this was the case in Virginia is beyond dispute, 
and a little inquiry into the subject reveals a situati9n 
unique in the history of the various commonwealths of 
the United States. We see a state containing 67,000 
square miles of territory, divided into unequal parts by 
high mountain ranges. Commerce on the eastern side 
follows its natural course and is diverted toward the 
Atlantic Ocean. In the western region, following the 

* All figures and estimates given above were taken from the 
United States Census Reports of 1860 and 1870. 



18 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

natural law, commercial communications are carried on 
almost wholly with the cities and towns of the section 
of the United States drained by the Mississippi and its 
tributaries. In this age Nature's commands are fre- 
quently disregarded by ingenious man ; and railroads, 
canals, and steamships have not only annihilated dis- 
tance, but have afforded easy means of communication 
between regions separated by natural barriers. Not 
so in Virginia. Blind to the certain consequences of 
continued sectional strife, having as its great cause lack 
of personal contact between the people of the two sec- 
tions, the Old Dominion made little effort to bring to- 
gether the mountain-severed peoples. 

It is not to be understood that there were entirely 
lacking wise men who endeavored to bridge the gap, for, 
as we shall see, the number of schemes having this 
object in view is evidence that the danger was foreseen 
in some quarters. A note of alarm was sounded offi- 
cially in 1857. After complaining that the products 
of western Virginia were sent to Pennsylvania, Ohio, 
and Louisiana the writer declares as follows : "Thus, 
by every geographical and geological cause were our 
people segregated into separate communities and di- 
vided from each other and all mutual commercial de- 
pendency." Lack of harmony, we are told, resulted in 
schemes of internal improvements which were dictated 
by sectional feeling.^ The writer in the role of apolo- 
gist is not altogether successful; his evident purpose 

* Address of Governor Henry A. Wise. De Bow's Review, 
1857, Vol. 23, pp. 58-70. 



SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIVERGENCIES 19 

was to excuse or at least to palliate the evident selfish- 
ness and short-sightedness of the people of his section 
who had long controlled legislative affairs in Virginia. 
He describes correctly the difficulties which would pre- 
sent themselves to the railroad engineer who endeavored 
to pierce the mountain ranges. To bring the Ohio 
River region into connection with the cismontane it 
was necessary to "pass over or through a backbone of 
from one to two hundred miles of mountains running 
in parallel ridges north, east, and southwest across 
her entire limit. Tunnel after tunnel at short intervals 
arrest her progress and make each work one of patient 
labor and of time. She has to overcome a summit level 
of nearly 2,000 feet for a breadth from east to west; 
which no other people on the continent, any more than 
Virginians, have as yet overcome." ^ 

Looking backward from the year 1861 we see a suc- 
cession of abortive attempts to unite the sections of 
the state. The ambition of the Chesapeake & Ohio 
Canal Company was to bring together the waters of 
the Potomac and the Monongahela rivers. This plan 
did not result in anything especially beneficial to Vir- 
ginia and it may be doubted if the completion of the 
canal from Cumberland, Maryland, to the Mononga- 
hela would have served the purpose we are now dis- 
cussing. It is probable that its effect would have been 
similar to that of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad — 
that is, the diversion of western trade to Baltimore 
rather than to Richmond. Something of this kind 
^ De Bow's Review, 1857, Vol. 23, pp. 58-70. 



20 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

must have been foreseen because the James River & 
Kanawha Canal Company was the direct outgrowth of 
the hostility toward the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal on 
the part of the eastern Virginians. A convention was 
held at Charlottesville to revive interest in the plan of 
uniting the James and the Kanawha rivers. While 
nothing definite was done, the scheme was not aban- 
doned, for it appears again in the Constitutional Con- 
vention of 1829-30. Here sectional jealousies again 
prevented action. The western members of the con- 
vention were accused of making an attempt to swamp 
the state with a debt created for the purpose of bene- 
fiting the west alone.^ And in the latter section there 
was lack of agreement between the counties of the 
northeast and the southwest, the former favoring the 
Chesapeake & Ohio plan and the latter, the union of the 
James and the Kanawha. In the Virginia Assembly of 
1828 a bill was introduced whereby the state would 
subscribe for $400,000 worth of Chesapeake & Ohio 
stock. ^ As its only strong supporters were the repre- 
sentatives from the two Panhandle districts, the bill 
failed. Of far greater importance to the state was the 
project which had for its purpose the connecting of the 
James and the Kanawha rivers. Here the benefits 
would have been far greater to the Richmond district 
than to any western region. But lack of foresight 
again was the cause of the failure of the plan, which 

* Debates of Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, p. 154 et 
seq., p. 211 et seq. 
'Ibid., p. 114. 



SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIVERGENCIES 21 

might have prevented in 1861 the defection of the 
counties drained by the Kanawha. 

Thus the golden opportunity was allowed to slip by 
with but feeble attempts to carry out the projected 
scheme, and when the Civil War broke out the canal 
had been completed only as far as the town of 
Buchanon.^ Sectional differences were immediately re- 
sponsible for the lack of action, but even if these had 
not existed the Whigs and the Democrats would have 
checked any attempt to provide for a permanent plan 
of improvements. Far-sighted merchants, however, 
continued their efforts to bring the sections of the state 
into closer commercial relationship. In an annual re- 
port of one of their associations it was recommended 
that the Assembly lay aside all petty jealousies and 
pass a bill for the union of the James and the Kanawha 
rivers, "and thus complete one of the grandest schemes 
that has engaged the attention of the country since the 
proposition of the Erie Canal." ^ 

The relations of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad with 
the state of Virginia are inextricably mixed up with 
party and sectional politics. Like the Chesapeake & 
Ohio Canal, the road was to touch merely that part of 
Virginia bordering on the Potomac and would un- 
doubtedly serve to draw trade away from Richmond 
toward Baltimore. The charter was first confirmed in 
1827; in 1836 the state subscribed for $302,100 worth 

* In Botetourt County. 

' Report of Merchant Exchange of Norfolk. De Bow's Review, 
1860, Vol. 28, p. 100 et seq. 



22 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

of bonds, and in 1838 this subscription was increased 
by $1,058,420. An extension was granted the same 
year, whereby the Company should be given until 1843 
to complete the road, which had thus far reached only 
to Cumberland, Maryland, one hundred and seventy- 
eight miles from Baltimore.^ The next four years were 
marked by the unavailing efforts of the Company to 
get a new and more satisfactory charter from the Vir- 
ginia Assembly, but so many demands were made and 
so many restrictions regarding taxation and routes 
were insisted upon that no common agreement could be 
made until 1847, in which year a charter was granted 
whereby the road was to be constructed from Cumber- 
land to Fairmont ^ and thence to Wheeling.^ This 
proved to be a working agreement; the project was 
carried on with all possible speed and on January 1, 
1853, the first train was run over the road into Wheel- 
ing, thus bringing the Ohio River district within easy 
distance of the eastern markets. As a means of con- 
summating a union of eastern and western Virginia the 
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad was a complete failure. It 
confirmed Wheeling in its position as the first city in 
western Virginia and brought the people of the Ohio 
River district more closely together, but its commercial 
effect was to attract trade from all parts of the north- 
west to the city of Baltimore. Thus in 1858 the Bal- 

* For complete account see Milton Reizenstein, "Economic His- 
tory of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 1827-53," Johns Hop- 
kins University Studies, Series XV, pp. 283-360. 

^ In Marion County, now West Virginia. 

» On the Ohio River. 



SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIVERGENCIES 23 

timore & Ohio Railroad carried into its eastern term- 
inus 1,000,594 barrels of flour, of which 682,314 came 
from the Wheeling district. Again, the route across 
the mountains from Wheeling to Baltimore proved of 
the greatest assistance to the Union during the Civil 
War. Except for a brief space of time in 1861, when 
the Confederates were in possession of certain sections 
of the road, the Northern Government controlled its 
operations and used it to transport troops and supplies 
from the western states to the east. It is easy to see 
that so far as the welfare of eastern Virginia was con- 
cerned, the building of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad 
was a mistake.^ 

A report to Congress in 1857 shows that the tonnage 
of the Ohio River from Pittsburgh to Louisville 
amounted to $138,630 per annum, and in one year, 
1856, 1,150,453 persons had traveled up and down the 
river between the cities of Pittsburgh, Wheeling, Cin- 
cinnati, and Louisville.^ Some of this traffic was di- 
verted naturally toward the Mississippi; a great deal 
of it went to Baltimore after 1853, but unquestionably 
a railroad uniting directly Richmond and the Ohio 
River would have worked a revolution in commercial 
geography. When to this are added the tremendous 
benefits which would have accrued to all sections 
through the opening up of the rich coal fields of the 

* It is to be noted that in 1846 an act of the Virginia Assembly 
repealed the former act of 1836 and 1838 subscribing for stock 
in the B. & O. R. R. 

^ Report of Captain Palmer, a topographical engineer, to Con- 
gress. De Bow's Review, 1857, Vol. 23, p. 630. 



24 THE DISKUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

Kanawha region, it is very evident that the failure of 
the eastern Virginians to foresee the latent possibilities 
of the Trans-AUeghanj counties was the cause of their 
undoing and, more than anything else, made the division 
of the state possible. A railroad such as the Chesa- 
peake & Ohio connecting Huntington on the Ohio River 
with Staunton or Lynchburg, with a lateral branch to 
Richmond, might have had the effect of preserving the 
state intact. 

In 1861 there were 1,379 miles of completed railroads 
in the state of Virginia. Of these but 361 miles were 
located in the western counties.^ It had long been the 
custom of the Virginia Assembly to subscribe for three 
fifths of the stock in any intra-state railroad,^ but al- 
most no encouragement was given to companies plan- 
ning to open up the western region. In 1860 the state 
owned railroad bonds to the amount of $20,000,000 and 
not a dollar of this had been spent in western Virginia. 
The Covington & Ohio Railroad was designed to con- 
nect Charleston with the Big Sandy region, but the 
plan fell through, as usual because of sectional jeal- 
ousies, and the railroad panic of 1857 put a final qui- 
etus on the efforts of its promoters. A report made 
to the General Assembly in 1857 urged the necessity 
of a state grant to the Alexandria, Loudoun, & Hamp- 
shire Railroad, which had for its object a junction with 
the Baltimore & Ohio near Piedmont. This was an old 
project, but it was not carried through until many 

* Poore's "Manual of Railroads," 1869-70, Preface, p. xxvii. 
'^American Railroad Journal^ 1854, p. 116. 



SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIVERGENCIES 25 

years later, long after there was any particular object 
in bringing together the northwest and the southeast. 
When trouble between the North and the South 
seemed inevitable, there was a reawakening of interest 
in the plans having for their purpose the bettering of 
means of communication between all sections of the 
state, for it was seen that western Virginia, isolated as 
it was from other sections of the South, could be taken 
by Northern troops with little opposition. Former 
opponents ^ now urged the completion of the Coving- 
ton & Ohio Railroad because it would permit western 
Virginia to send troops to eastern Virginia in the event 
of war. A new light seemed to dawn upon those who 
had previously been blind to the necessity of bringing 
the eastern and western sections of the state together. 
"It will be observed that two fifths of the whole Trans- 
AUeghany region is wholly isolated, that it has no com- 
munication with the northern frontier except a pre- 
carious one up the Ohio, and none with eastern Vir- 
ginia. Yet this very region is the seat of a large por- 
tion of the military portion of the state. ... It is as 
if we had a citadel filled with men and outworks feebly 
manned, with no connection from one to the other." ^ 
Stated baldly, the evident purpose of these new sup- 
porters of internal improvements was to make the west 
serve as a bulwark to protect the east. Their previ- 
ously successful attempts to block progress in the 
western section now proved to be a boomerang and, too 

^ Notably the Richmond Enquirer. 
^De Bow's Review, Vol. 19, p. 445. 



26 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

late, they had seen the light. Nothing could now be 
accomplished. Railroads were not built in a day or a 
year. The storm burst in 1861 and found Virginia 
almost as completely severed as she had been in Revo- 
lutionary War days. 



CHAPTER IV 

THE OPENING OF THE BREACH 

Nothing illustrates better the domineering spirit of 
the Tidewater planters than the fact that each new 
community as it established itself in the west gave un- 
mistakable evidence of chafing under a political 
tyranny. The Piedmont, the Valley, and the Trans- 
Alleghany regions in succession, and sometimes work- 
ing in conjunction, made vigorous but usually futile 
protests against the unjust discrimination existing in 
the state constitution and in statutory enactments. 
Kept in power by a system of representation that was 
only a degree less antiquated than the English rotten 
borough system, a small eastern clique was enabled to 
put through such legislation as it pleased. W^ith the 
history of the struggle of the Piedmont and the Valley 
for political equality, we are concerned only when it 
connects itself with the longer and more bitter quarrel 
between the Trans-AUeghany and the Tidewater. The 
constitution of 1851 was satisfactory to all the various 
sections on the eastern side of the Alleghanies ; old 
grievances had been redressed and for the first time in 
the history of Virginia all differences seemed to have 
been composed. 

27 



28 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

Before 1830 the inhabitants of western Virginia, 
"the peasantry of the West," worked under almost 
every political disadvantage which could afflict a free 
people. The constitution of 1776 established a unit 
scheme of representation, each county sending two dele- 
gates to the General Assembly. Its injustice became 
apparent after 1800, when the western counties began 
to fill up rapidly, while in the Tidewater district a dis- 
tinct retrogression set in. The parallel between the 
situation in Virginia before 1830 and that in England 
before the Reform Bill of 1832 must instantly suggest 
itself. The transmontane counties of Virginia were 
only a degree less unjustly treated than the manufac- 
turing districts of northern England, and the decadent 
counties of eastern Virginia might not inaptly be com- 
pared with English boroughs such as Old Sarum. 

The rapid growth of the west is shown by the fol- 
lowing figures: From 1790 to 1810 Harrison County 
increased in population from 2,080 to 9,958; Ohio 
County, from 5,212 to 8,175 ; Pendleton County, from 
2,452 to 4,234; Randolph, from 951 to 2,854.^ The 
refusal of the Assembly to provide for the proportion- 
ate increase of representation in the House of Dele- 
gates enabled the eastern members to retain the balance 
of power. Thus "forty-nine counties adjacent to each 
other in the eastern and southern sections of the state 
had a majority of the whole number of representatives 
in the most numerous branch of the legislature, and 
those counties and boroughs contained in 1810 only 
^Niles Register, 1812, VoL 1, p. 289. 



THE OPENING OF THE BREACH 29 

204,766 white inhabitants, less than one half of the pop- 
ulation of the state by 72,138 souls." ^ The Senate was 
composed of twenty-four members elected from sena- 
torial districts, and in the course of years the shifting 
of population had rendered the old grouping of counties 
as much out of date as was the system of representa- 
tion in the lower house. Thus we find that in 1810, 
212,036 white persons of Virginia were represented by 
four Senators, while in another part of the state thir- 
teen Senators were chosen by a white population of 
162,717.^ Jefferson declares that "the majority of the 
men in the state who pay and fight for its support are 
unrepresented in the legislature, the roll of freeholders 
entitled to vote not including the half of those on the 
roll of the militia or of the tax gatherers." ^ In one 
company of eighty men which fought in the war of 
1812 there was only one voter. It is not surprising^ 
however, to find in Virginia before 1830 the voting 
privilege limited to freeholders, for such was almost 
universally the case throughout the United States.^ 
According to the writers and speakers of the east, this 
restriction worked very little hardship upon the west- 
ern inhabitants of Virginia, for land was cheap and 
plentiful in the west and one might qualify as a free- 
holder for a very small smn of money. "In the west a 

^ From the Memorial of the Staunton Convention of 1816. 
Quoted in Niles Register, 1816, Vol. 11, pp. 15-23. 

»Ihid. 

'"Notes on Virginia." (Phila., 1794), p. 168. 

* According to a speaker in the convention of 1829-30, Virginia 
was the only state in the Union which maintained the freehold 
qualifications throughout. See "Debates," p. 356. 



30 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

certain quantity of land, not worth five cents in all, 
was sufficient to make a man a voter, while in the east 
the smallest quantity of land communicating the sarne 
privilege was worth from fifty to one hundred dollars." ^ 
The persons really discriminated against were the lease- 
holders, the mechanics and tradesmen of the cities, and 
the small farmers of the east. These, rather than the 
yeomen of the west, had reason to complain of electoral 
injustice. Nevertheless, it is from the west that the 
cry of oppression is most frequently heard. It was 
declared that the rights which the Revolutionary fa- 
thers obtained by the sword had been resisted by the 
little eastern counties, feeling power and forgetting 
right. We are told that one western county, in regard 
to population, wealth, and physical force should have 
had the weight of ten eastern counties, some of which 
had scarcely two hundred free white males in them above 
the age of twenty-six.^ 

Evidence of the discontent existing in Virginia be- 
fore 1816 is rather fragmentary, such as the expression 
in a certain memorial that only the immediate rectifi- 
cation of present evils could allay "the excitement ex- 
isting in the state." ^ In 1816 the sectional troubles 
culminated in the Staunton Convention, the first of a 
series of meetings held for the purpose of protesting 
against the administration of the Richmond Junto. 
Thirty-seven counties lying between the Blue Ridge and 

^Debates of Constitutional Convention, 1829-30, p. 346. 

^Niles Register, 1823, Vol. 23, pp. 341-342. 

^ Memorial of the Staunton Convention. See above, p. 29. 



THE OPENING OF THE BREACH 31 

the Ohio River were represented by seventy delegates. 
From the Trans-Alleghany were twenty-eight delegates 
from the following counties : Berkeley, Brooke, Green- 
brier, Hampshire, Hardy, Harrison, Jefferson, Kana- 
wha, Monongalia, Monroe, Ohio, Pendleton, Randolph, 
and Wood.^ In this convention Botetourt, Rockbridge, 
Augusta, and Montgomery counties favored merely a 
mild petition to the legislature urging a redistricting of 
the state. Delegates from the counties further west 
felt the need of a stronger method of persuasion and 
were willing to go to any reasonable length to accomp- 
lish their purpose. Their chief ambition was to provide 
for the amendment of the state constitution "so as to 
give a fair and equal representation to every part of 
the state in both branches of the legislature." ^ The 
convention adjourned after drawing up a memorial to 
the General Assembly and providing for a working 
organization in each county. In the petition only the 
mildest language was used, and it was even declared 
that existing inequalities were caused by the "opera- 
tion of natural causes." The legislature was requested 
to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of 
redressing certain wrongs which were inevitable under 
the old constitution. 

At various times, beginning in 1817, bills had been 
introduced into the General Assembly providing for the 

^The delegates elected from Tyler County failed to put in 
their appearance. 

^ It is interesting to observe that the delegates from the ex- 
treme western counties were more conservative than the Valley 
delegates. 



32 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

calling of a constitutional convention. Sometimes they 
had passed the lower house only to be defeated in the 
Senate. -"^ The services of Thomas Jefferson were en- 
listed in the cause of constitutional revision and the 
noble old democrat, then standing on the brink of the 
grave, expressed his views in language which could not 
be misunderstood. "Upon what principle of right or 
reason can anyone justify the giving to every citizen 
of Warwick as much weight in the government as twen- 
ty-two equal citizens in Loudoun?" ^ he asks, and the 
eastern patricians could only reply that the constitu- 
tion, under which they had enjoyed for forty years a 
share of political prosperity and personal blessings 
which had rarely fallen to the lot of man, should not be 
left to the mercy of untried hands. 

In 1823 a new line of attack was begun and the mat- 
ter of removing the capital from Richmond to some 
city in the Valley was first agitated. Representative 
Baldwin who sponsored the bill in the House of Dele- 
gates showed that Richmond was not even close to the 
center of white population any longer. Since 1790 the 
west had increased 132,076, while the east had gained 
but 42,032. But Richmond as the seat of government 
was too firmly fixed in the minds of the people of the 
state to be shaken by anything less than a revolution, 
and it was altogether likely that the proposal was a 
sort of declaration of intention, to the effect that if 

* In 1817 the contest was a close one and moves the editor of 
Niles Register to remark: "We hardly believed that it would have 
been so much opposed." Vol 11, p. 399. 

''Ibid., 1824, Vol. 26, p. 179. 






THE OPENING OF THE BREACH 33 

more privileges were not granted the western counties 
there would be open war between the sections of the 
state. At the time there is no question that Virginia 
wsis "an aristocratical republic" where the right of suf- 
frage, which was the constituent quality and the sov- 
ereign power of a citizen, was limited to the landed 
aristocracy of the state.-*^ Little wonder that in an as- 
sembly where "working people were rarely found" ^ and 
little welcomed, a bill designed to democratize the or- 
ganic law of the state encountered bitter opposition. 

The voice of the people would not be stilled, how- 
ever, and the Assembly was forced to yield to the im- 
portunities of the western counties ; so in 1828 the 
question of calling a constitutional convention was sub- 
mitted to the people of the state and the proposition 
was endorsed by a vote of 21,896 to 16,646. As might 
be expected seven eighths of the Tidewater district 
were in opposition. We are somewhat surprised to find 
an almost equal division of opinion in the Piedmont. 
The vote in the Valley was overwhelmingly in favor of 
the convention; and in the Trans-Alleghany three 
fourths of the qualified voters expressed their ap- 
proval.^ February 10, 1829, the General Assembly 
passed an act calling for the election of delegates to a 
convention which should meet in Richmond October 5, 
1829, for the purpose of revising the existing constitu- 
tion or of drawing up a new one. The western members 

^Niles Register, 1825. See article on "Sovereignty of the 
People," Vol. 27, pp. 17, 33, 49, 66, 97. 
Ubid. 
'Ambler, "Sectionalism in Virginia," p. 14.4-. 



34 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

of the legislature contended for the election of dele- 
gates on the basis of white population, but they were 
overruled and a compromise favorable to the east was 
adopted, giving each senatorial district four repre- 
sentatives. That this plan worked to the advantage of 
the eastern counties may be seen from the fact that of 
the ninety-six delegates to the convention forty-eight 
were from the Tidewater, twenty from the Piedmont, 
and twenty-eight from the Valley and the Trans- 
Alleghany. As the two older sections of the state were 
one on all important questions, particularly when their 
political primacy was at stake, the result was to give 
the conservatives sixty-eight of the ninety-six dele- 
gates in the convention. Stated more graphically, 362,- 
745 white inhabitants in the Tidewater and Piedmont 
elected sixty-eight delegates and 319,518 white persons 
in the Valley and Trans-Alleghany were represented by 
twenty-eight delegates.^ Several eastern senatorial dis- 
tricts contained fewer than 20,000 whites, while the 
western senatorial districts, entitled to the same num- 
ber of representatives, four, had a population of from 
37,000 to 60,000.2 

1 Debates of Constitutional Convention, 1829-30, p. 335. 
^Ibid., p. 8T. 



CHAPTER V 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1829-30 

In no state convention, perhaps, have there been more 
distinguished men than in the convention which assem- 
bled at Richmond October 5, 1829. The presence of 
Madison, Monroe, and Marshall alone would have given 
the gathering unusual prominence ; but there were other 
men, no less able, possessing reputations which extended 
far beyond the borders of the state. Senators Tyler 
and Tazewell, Representatives Randolph and Barbour, 
Judges Upshur and Green upheld the tradition that 
Virginia was the mother of statesmen. All the above- 
mentioned persons were from that part of Virginia 
lying between the Blue Ridge and the sea. From the 
west came men of only local prominence, but their 
character and ability were soon recognized on the floor 
of the convention hall. Philip Doddridge and Alexan- 
der Campbell, from Brooke County, deserve special 
mention. Doddridge had served in the National House 
of Representatives and was the author of a book which 
created quite a furore at the time.^ Campbell is best 
known as the founder of the Disciples (or Christian) 
Church. Eloquent speakers such as Tazewell, Upshur, 

* Doddridge's "Notes," printed in 1824, was one of the first 
anti-slavery publications to receive wide circulation. 

35 



36 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

and Green met their match in this western preacher, 
upheld as he was by the splendid logic and the unsur- 
passed eloquence of Mr. Doddridge. The other sixteen 
delegates from the Trans-Alleghany were unknown to 
their eastern colleagues, and received but scant consid- 
eration. Throughout the convention the Trans-Alle- 
ghany and the Valley were aligned against the Pied- 
mont and the Tidewater, the Blue Ridge forming 
the dividing line as did the Alleghanies thirty years 
later. 

The convention organized with James Monroe as 
President, but before the meetings were half over he 
was compelled to resign because of poor health and P. 
P. Barbour ^ was elected to fill the place. Four com- 
mittees consisting of one delegate from each of the 
twenty-four districts were appointed, and to one com- 
mittee was assigned the task of framing the clauses re- 
lating to the legislative department; to another was 
assigned the executive department; to a third, the 
judicial, while the fourth was to report a bill of rights.^ 
In the debate upon the appointment of committees Mr. 
Tazewell of Norfolk borough advocated the revision of 
the old constitution because the small majority which 
had called together the convention was composed of a 
"mixed and heterogeneous mass," while the minority 
who opposed the act were made up of an element re- 
spectable in numbers and character.^ Thus in one sen- 

* Afterward Associate Justice of the United States Supreme 
Court. 
=• "Debates," pp. 20-21. 
^Ibid., p. 17. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1829-30 37 

tence we can perceive the narrow and intolerant spirit 
which dominated the minds of the Tidewater aristocrats. 

Two great questions were under discussion the major 
portion of the time; viz., the basis of representation 
and the extension of the voting privilege. The Trans- 
Alleghany was most interested in the former question, 
for the reason that slaves composed but a small part 
of the population of its counties. Delegates from the 
Valley, in which section resided a large and intelligent 
non-voting class, massed their strength against the re- 
strictions on suffrage. 

The committees on judiciary and executive reported 
on October 20th, but the only change of any impor- 
tance which they recommended was the abolition of the 
Governor's Council, a body that had given offense to 
the west by its opposition to internal improvement.-^ 
October 24th the legislative committee made its report, 
one that precipitated a debate which lasted with but 
slight intermission until the end of the session. The 
most important recommendations of this committee 
were: First, that in the apportionment of representa- 
tion in the House of Delegates regard should be had to 
white population exclusively; second, that reappor- 
tionment should be made at least every twenty years 
after 1845 ; third, that suffrage be extended to three 
classes of citizens besides the freeholders already exer- 
cising that right — namely, owners of an estate in fee, 
in remainder, or in reversion, leaseholders, and certain 
heads of families paying revenue to the state. The 
^ "Debates," p. 33 et seq. 



38 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

fourth recommendation was to the effect that the num- 
ber of Senators should neither be increased nor dim- 
inished. These suggestions met with the approval of 
the eastern delegates, who had always upheld the prin- 
ciple that property as well as persons should be repre- 
sented. So Judge Upshur says, "If the interests of 
the several parts of the commonwealth were identical it 
would be safe and proper that a majority of persons 
only should give the rule of political power. But our 
interests are not identical and the difference between us 
arises from property alone.'' ^ 

Doddridge attacked this position and showed that 
under the rule of property the west had been retarded 
in growth. "Your doctrine makes me a slave," he said 
to Upshur; "we are a majority of individual units in 
the state and your equals in intelligence and virtue, 
moral and political. Yet you say we must obey you. 
You declare that the rule of the minority has never 
oppressed us nor visited us with practical evil; but of 
this we are the best judges. We have felt your weight 
and have suffered under misrule." ^ An amendment to 
the first resolution reported by the committee on legis- 
lature providing "that in the apportionment of repre- 
sentation in the House of Delegates regard should be 
had to white population and taxation combined," pro- 
voked a discussion which lasted three weeks. Its only 
effect was to increase the ill-feeling among the dele- 
gates. The east favored the amendment, on the ground 

^ "Debates," p. 65 et seq. 
"Ibid., p. 88. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1829-30 39 

that power to govern should reside in that portion of 
the people which paid the most taxes. The west, it was 
asserted, took more from the treasury each year than 
it contributed and yet it was asking the east to trans- 
fer political control to those who were paying one 
fourth of the taxes. ^ The approximate truth of this 
statement was admitted by the western speakers who, 
in rebuttal, replied that if property was to be counted 
as a basis for voting, consistency demanded that each 
person be entitled to as many votes as some standard 
which should be fixed by his tax receipts should war- 
rant. Then and only then could we "come out into the 
open as an aristocracy and not parade around in the 
guise of a republic." ^ 

The contemptuous attitude exhibited by the eastern 
delegates toward their western colleagues did much to 
widen the breach which had existed before the conven- 
tion met. For example, Mr. Leigh, of Chesterfield 
County, expressed the following opinion: "In every 
civilized country under the sun some there must be who 
labor for their daily bread, either by contract with or 
subjection to others, or for themselves. Slaves in the 
eastern part of this state fill the place of the peasan- 
try of Europe, of the peasantry or day laborers in the 
non-slaveholding states of this Union. . . . Even in 
the present state of the population beyond the Alle- 
ghany there must be some peasantry . . . that is, 
men who tend the herd and dig the soil, who have 



^"Debates," p. 112. 
2 Ibid. 



40 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

neither real nor personal capital of their own and who 
earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brow. 
These, by this scheme ^ are all to be represented — ^but 
not our slaves. And yet in political economy the lat- 
ter fill exactly the same place. . . . Now what real 
share so far as mind is concerned does any man suppose 
the peasantry of the west . . . can or will take in the 
affairs of the state?'* ^ 

November 7th the one Tidewater delegate ^ who ad- 
vocated the adoption of the white basis of representa- 
tion throughout resigned, because he had been re- 
quested by his constituents to support his fellow mem- 
bers from the east. His withdrawal and the election 
of Hugh Grigsby weakened the reformers at a time 
when every vote counted. So tightly were party lines 
drawn and so embittered did the discussions become that 
more than once a division of the state was suggested as 
the only possible outcome of an otherwise insoluble 
question. Mr. Monroe was fearful that such would be 
the outcome eventually, and Mr. Giles held the same 
view. "Could not every gentleman see in these extra- 
ordinary excitements and actual movements of the 
people great danger of a separation, particularly 
where a geographical line of demarcation was already 

^ Referring to the recommendation of the committee to appor- 
tion delegates in the lower house according to white population. 

" "Debates," p. 158 et seq. The terms "peasantry" and "yeo- 
manry" had always been applied to the Trans-AUeghany settlers. 
The Richmond Whig and Advertiser May 13, 1836, tells of a 
monument erected at Norfolk to the "brave and patriotic yeo- 
manry of the upper country who defended Norfolk in 1814-15." 

» Robert B. Taylor of Norfolk. "Debates," p. 234. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1829-30 41 

designated for separating the combatants?" he 
asks.^ 

The discussion dragged along until November 14th 
when it was brought to a conclusion by John Randolph 
in a typical speech wherein he declares that it was the 
first time in his life he had ever heard of power being di- 
vorced from property, and said, furthermore, that if 
he were a younger man he would not "live under the 
monstrous tyranny of King Numbers which it was pro- 
posed to subject us to." ^ Green's amendment was de- 
feated by a vote of forty-seven to forty-nine. Mr. 
Leigh now proposed to adopt the federal basis of rep- 
resentation in the House of Delegates, a proceeding 
characterized by Alexander Campbell as that of "mak- 
ing three white men out of five negroes or of putting 
five souls into three bodies." ^ Mr. Leigh's proposition 
was defeated and as it was perceived that no compro- 
mise could be effected at this time, the section was 
passed by and the recommendations in reference to suf- 
frage were taken up. 

The east was firmly opposed to the extension of the 
ballot. Already there were too many ignorant voters 
in the state and now it was proposed to add further to 
the list. Mr. Wilson of Monongalia County offered a 
substitute for the report of the committee, which, if 
adopted, would have given Virginia a most liberal suf- 
frage law. The only qualifications for voting were to 

^"Debates," p. 253. 
^Ibid., p. 321. 
• Ibid., p. 123. 



42 THE DISEUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

be those of age, residence, enrollment in the militia, and 
the possession of good character and sound mind. The 
abolition of the freehold limitation was urged because, 
first, it worked a hardship upon the man who was so 
unfortunate as to lose his property; second, because 
many able persons failed to acquire property; third, 
because it banished "vast numbers of our young men to 
the western states, where this odious restriction does 
not exist. ... I speak of western Virginia when I say 
that if the state were called upon to furnish annually 
her quota of troops to aid the general Government in 
resisting the attack of all Europe combined it would 
not consume our strength or retard our population 
more than do the restrictions imposed by her laws upon 
the right of suffrage." -^ In opposition to this it was 
declared that the freehold restriction was the safeguard 
of the middle class and the enemy of aristocracy. The 
dependents of the wealthier classes would vote as they 
were directed, a condition which would be far worse 
than the existing one.^ Mr. Wilson's substitute was 
defeated thirty-seven to fif ty- three. ^ The west was 
now committed to universal suffrage and around this 
the debate raged for many days. It was advocated as 
the panacea for all political ills and opposed as the 
source of all the evils to which the flesh was heir. Mon- 

' "Debates," p. 254. 

» Ibid., p. 367. 

' Monroe, Madison, and Marshall all voted in the negative, and 
in practically all questions aligned themselves with the con- 
servatives, although on several occasions Madison voted with the 
western delegates. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1829-30 43 

roe, whose aim as long as he sat in the convention ^ was 
to play the part of pacificator, wished to reconcile the 
divergent views of the members if possible, but proved 
from history that every republic which had decayed and 
passed away was first of all undermined by laws de- 
signed to open up citizenship and voting to those peo- 
ple who had no permanent interest in the State. ^ 

By mutual consent the convention passed on to con- 
sider the question of how the Senate should be chosen. 
Many propositions were brought in designed to reform 
this body, but the plan finally adopted was one which 
left unchanged the basis of representation. It merely 
distributed the Senators among the four grand divi- 
sions of the state — a virtual recognition of sectional- 
ism. There were to be thirty-two Senators and one 
hundred and thirty-four members in the lower house. 
The Valley and the Trans-AUeghany split on the ques- 
tion of the adoption of the white basis of representa- 
tion. The former possessed large numbers of slaves and 
was not willing to see them omitted when the time came 
for apportioning representation. The plan finally 
agreed to suited this section very well, as it left unset- 
tled the question at issue and gave to its counties a 
much larger delegation in the legislature.^ 

1 He resigned Dec. 12, 1829. 

'^"Debates," p. 325. 

3 The plan finally adopted was opposed by every Trans-AUe- 
ghany delegate; was voted for by every delegate from the 
Tidewater, while the Valley cast the deciding vote in its favor. 
Nearly all the eastern delegates who voted for the white basis 
were from counties bordering on North Carolina, Kentucky, and 
Maryland. 



44 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

The executive department was the next object of at- 
tack, and here Mr. Doddridge proposed a radical 
change — that of having the Governor elected by the 
people instead of by the legislature. The council was 
to be abolished altogether. In spite of the fact that 
the conservatives could find few real arguments against 
these proposals they were defeated. Similarly an ef- 
fort to have the county court elected by the people in- 
stead of being appointed by the Governor failed. This 
body had become a close corporation and its power of 
electing the sheriff gave it tremendous power in the 
localities. The reformers also endeavored to have the 
office of sheriff made an elective one, but their efforts 
proved of no avail, even though the report of the com- 
mittee on legislation favored it. The conservatives were 
in full control of the convention and wrote into the con- 
stitution anything they dared. We say dared because 
the thinly-veiled threats of the western delegates had 
not been lost, and while the new frame of government 
was far from being ideal, viewed from the twentieth 
century, it had, nevertheless, gone farther than would 
have been the case had the western leaders held their 
peace. 

The last two weeks of the convention were taken up 
with the consideration of minor questions. A resolu- 
tion introduced endorsing a free public school system 
was contemptuously rejected. A provision for future 
amendments to the constitution was removed from the 
final draft by a vote of sixty-eight to twenty-five. It 
was at this point that John Randolph prophesied that 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1829-30 45 

the new constitution would not last twenty years. Op- 
posed to all change, he believed the oldest things to be 
the best. "They may say what they please about the 
old constitution," he said ; "the defect is not there. It 
is not in the form of the edifice . . . neither in the de- 
sign nor in the elevation; it is in the material, it is in 
the people of Virginia. I will do nothing to provide 
for change. I will not agree to any rule for future 
apportionment or to any provision for future changes 
called amendments to the constitution. They who love 
change, who delight in public confusion, who wish to 
feed the cauldron and make it bubble may vote if they 
please for future changes. . . . No constitution that 
you can make will last the half of half a century. Sir, 
I will stake anything short of my salvation that those 
who are malcontent now will be more malcontent three 
years hence than they are to-day." ^ And so it proved, 
for within less than three years organized movements 
were set on foot to destroy the document which had 
been constructed so recently at so much expense and 
labor. 

The convention ended its work January 14, 1830, 
with the adoption of the constitution by a vote of fifty- 
five to forty. On the negative side were all the dele- 
gates from the Trans-Alleghany, one of the Valley rep- 
resentatives ^ and a Mr. Stanard from Spottsylvania 
County.^ The sentiment among the western members 

^ "Debates," pp. 790-791. 

^ Mr. Cooke, of Frederick County. 

3 The final vote is recorded on p. 382 of the "Debates." 



46 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

seemed to be that in the constitution of 1830 they had 
not been given even half a loaf; that the Tidewater 
planters had again succeeded in frustrating all at- 
tempts to make Virginia a democratic state in a demo- 
cratic Union. 

In accordance with the schedule the constitution was 
submitted to the qualified voters of the state at the 
regular April election and after a bitter contest, in 
which the chief sensation was a circular letter sent out 
by Mr. Doddridge attacking certain members of the 
convention, the new frame of government was ratified 
by a vote of 26,055 to 15,563.^ An analysis of the 
vote shows that with two exceptions ^ every county in- 
cluded in the present state of West Virginia piled up 
majorities against ratification. The northern Pan- 
handle rejected it by 1,014 to 3, and in no western 
county was there anything more than a mere scattering 
of votes in the affirmative. It is somewhat surprising 
to find the Valley supporting strongly the new consti- 
tution, an action which was a virtual rejection of the 
action of the Valley delegates in the convention.^ 
Thenceforth the two western divisions of Virginia were 
to pursue separate courses, with but few exceptions. 
The slaveholding Valley was to have little in common 
with the free western counties in the future. 

The constitutional convention of 1829-30 marks an 

^ "Debates," p. 903. 

^ Jefferson and Hampshire counties. 

' Giles, Bath, Montgomery, Wythe, Grayson, Warwick, Scott, 
Russell, and Lancaster counties, all of which held few slaves, 
voted against ratification. The vote in Wythe County was 41 to 
625; and in Grayson, 70 to 649. 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1829-30 47 

important epoch in the history of Virginia. Sum- 
moned for the purpose of silencing sectional disputes, 
its one great and lasting effect was to crystallize these 
disputes into such a form that ever after they were 
easily recognized and understood. It had the useful 
effect of bringing together men from all sections of the 
state and showed the east that some good and able men 
could come from the west. The two great factions 
from this time on had a truer if not a better under- 
standing of each other. For the first time the east 
began to appreciate the vast possibilities that lay be- 
yond the Alleghanies, and the west, conscious of its 
latent power, threatened secession from the state when- 
ever it believed itself to be unjustly treated. Western 
Virginia at this time was certainly not opposed to slav- 
ery, although it was so considered by the other sections 
of the state. But it is unquestionably true that the 
reformers came away from the convention of 1829-30 
more hostile to slavery than they had ever been before. 
They saw that the "almighty nigger" enabled the east 
to maintain its grip on the political situation and were 
under no illusions regarding the unwillingness of the 
east to surrender the power which was theirs as a re- 
sult of property in slaves. 

As has been previously suggested, the adoption of 
the constitution of 1830 widened the gap between the 
two sections of Virginia. "The power of the state was 
divided against the necessity of the state. . . . The 
struggle to equalize the representation according to the 
number of citizens engendered strife and sectional an- 



48 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

tagonisms. The east then felt the necessity to be taxed 
for roads and canals and had the majority of repre- 
sentation to withhold appropriations to public 
works." ^ The west was conscious of its growing 
strength, and the publication of the census of 1830 
made that section feel more strongly that it was labor- 
ing under oppressive and unjust laws.^ Immigration 
served to keep up this spirit of discontent, for the new 
settlers came principally from foreign countries and 
from free states and had no sentiment for old Vir- 
ginia traditions. Much of the conservative spirit 
which cropped out in western Virginia at all times was 
due to sentiment alone ; but the new settlers who helped 
to swell the population of the western counties could not 
be checked in some action hostile to the east by the 
command to conjure up the memory of Washington, 
Patrick Henry, and Jefferson. 

» Address of Henry A. Wise. De Bow's Review, 1857, Vol. 23, 
p. 65. 

='The census showed the following distribution of population in 
Virginia : 

Whites Slaves Free Total 

Colored 
Trans- Alleghany .... 183,245 18,671 1,492 203,403 

Valley 134,825 34,804 4,681 174,310 

Middle 208,895 230,953 11,960 451,808 

Tidewater 166,089 186,445 28,873 381,407 

" 1,210,973 



CHAPTER VI 

THE PROGRESS OF SECTIONALISM 

Between 1830 and 1840 sporadic attempts were 
made to rectify the existing abuses. The time was not 
ripe for the calling of another convention, for the state 
had not forgotten what the last one had cost. The 
west, however, never let the question drop and through 
the medium of newspaper editorials and resolutions of 
public meetings the western heart was fired for a re- 
form which should be reform indeed. National politics 
were at fever heat during this decade and absorbed the 
time and attention both of the people and of their rep- 
resentatives in the legislature. At the opening of the 
special session of the legislature in 1837 Governor 
Campbell in his message advised that body to adjourn 
just as soon as it had disposed of the one question for 
which it had been called together, because, said he, "no 
good can arise from agitating the public mind by pro- 
posing new plans of reforai — and evil may." 

The census of 1840 showed the white population of 
the west to be greater than that of the east by 2,351. 
And the west was not slow in making capital of this 
fact. As a proof that the political leaders of the east 
had failed to keep up with the spirit of the times, they 

49 



50 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

pointed to the figures on illiteracy, which proved that 
Virginia was in a deplorable condition educationally. 
The census reports announced the illiterate whites in 
Virginia to number 58,732 at this time, 29,808 of whom 
were in the east and 28,924 in the west. Harrison and 
Monongaha counties led with 2,327 and 2,132 respec- 
tively.^ The east professed its inability to perceive 
any good reason for this, admittedly, disgraceful con- 
dition of affairs, but the west placed the blame on the 
retrogressive eastern Junto, whose aims and ideas were 
no further advanced than those of Governor Berkeley. 
The west fairly clamored for reform. The discovery 
that the majority of white persons in the state were 
represented by ten Senators and fifty-six delegates, 
while the eastern minority sent nineteen Senators and 
seventy-eight delegates to the General Assembly, made 
the reformers more determined than ever to seek and to 
obtain redress. The constitution of 1830 provided 
"that the General Assembly after the year 1841 and at 
intervals thereafter of not less than ten years shall have 
authority, two thirds of each house concurring, to 
make reapportionment of delegates and Senators 
throughout the commonwealth" ; and to this clause the 
western leaders pinned their hopes. However, there 
was nothing mandatory about this provision and behind 
this the east took refuge. In 1842 a bill to reapportion 
delegates on the basis of qualified voters was rejected, 
in spite of a favorable committee report. Similarly, 

^"The Sentinel of the Valley," quoted in Niles Register, Vol. 
69, pp. 22-23, 



THE PKOGRESS OF SECTIONALISM 51 

a movement to call a convention failed.^ Before this 
legislature adjourned a protest was submitted by fifty 
western members, pronouncing the refusal of the east 
to live up to the spirit of the constitution as sufficient 
cause for decisive action.^ The refusal on the part of 
the east to correct the inequality of representation was 
a violation of the Declaration of Rights, declared the 
protestants. Meetings were called in various parts of 
the western counties and resolutions and memorials 
adopted without number. A convention at Lewisburg 
in the summer of 1842 was attended by eighty dele- 
gates, quite a number of whom took a prominent part 
in the events of 1861.^ Newspapers hurled editorial 
broadsides at their eastern brethren. A most succinct 
statement of grievances is to be found in a paper pub- 
lished in the northern Panhandle: 

"West Virginia has a population of 271,000 and a 
representation of fifty-six in the Assembly, while Vir- 
ginia has 269,000 and seventy-eight delegates. West 
Virginia has in the Senate thirteen, eastern Virginia, 
nineteen. The consequence is, eastern Virginia caring 
nothing about roads, we have none — opposed to the 
general policy of other states, and we are compelled to 
submit. West Virginia is represented in Congress by 
seven members, eastern Virginia by fourteen members. 
No Senator has ever been elected from west of the Blue 
Ridge. All public officers are appointed from the east ; 

^Niles Register, 1842, Vol. 62, p. 32. 
*Ibid., p. 80. 
»76id., p. 387. 



52 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

the Governor is an eastern man, and all the state ex- 
penditures are made in the east. It strikes us that 
these are something to quarrel for." -^ 

The session of 1843 ended without decisive action on 
the sectional questions at issue, although the House 
of Delegates passed a bill for reapportionment on the 
combined basis of population and taxes. This the west 
did not want. They knew that the east contributed 
more to the state treasury, and any election of dele- 
gates with taxation as a basis would confirm the east 
in its political mastery. The plan was denounced as 
"the most iniquitous and unjust that could be devised by 
any process short of a resort to the regions of Pluto. 
There is a line over which the oppressor cannot pass. 
This line has been overstepped by the Virginia legis- 
lature and we shall be craven-hearted cowards if we do 
not bid them to come farther at their peril." ^ This 
and similar examples of editorial hyperbole served the 
cause of reform, but it is only fair to state that the 
grievances of the west, real as they were, were always 
overstated. Statistics show that the Trans-AUeghany 
had received some money for internal improvements, 
and had been represented in the principal offices of the 
state. The east positively declined to admit that there 
were any just grounds for complaint, and professed to 
view the whole matter as a means whereby the west could 
undertake the coercion of the east and thereby obtain 

^Wheeling Times and Advertiser, June 28, 1842, quoted in 
Niles Register, Vol. 62, p. 387. 

^Ibid., Feb. 16, 1843, quoted in Nil^s Register, Vol. 67, p. 
400. 



THE PROGRESS OF SECTIONALISM 53 

large sums of money for improvements which would not 
benefit the whole state. 

A new turn in affairs was taken when the legislature 
refused to permit the Baltimore & Oliio Railroad to 
construct a line which would strike the Ohio at the 
mouth of the Little Kanawha River. The Wheeling 
district would be taken care of by the line through 
Cumberland to Baltimore, but the central counties of 
western Virginia were isolated from the rest of the 
state. A meeting was held at Clarksburg, May, 1845, 
to protest against the restrictive policy of the legisla- 
ture. "If such is to be the settled policy of the legis- 
lature toward the northwest," the resolutions read, 
"better, much better would it be for this portion of the 
state at once to dissolve the political connection that 
now binds it to the rest of the state." ^ Richmond was 
opposed to the granting of any franchise that might 
lead to the diversion of trade in the direction of Balti- 
more and preferred to see the James River and Kana- 
wha Canal completed,^ but the superiority of the rail- 
road over the canal was now unquestioned and the west 

^Niles Register, 1845, Vol. 68, p. 254. Many of the Valley 
newspapers endorsed the sentiments of the Clarksburg resolu- 
tions. 

^Niles Register, 1846, Vol. 68, p. 255, quotes the Richmond 
Times to that effect, A Right of Way Convention was held at 
Weston, Lewis County, Sept. 25, 1846, to protest against the 
refusal of the Legislature to grant the B. & O. a franchise. The 
act was denounced as one of "injustice and oppression un- 
paralleled in the history of legislation." Ibid., Vol. 71, p. 99. 
Feb. 19, 1845, the Legislature passed an act granting a right 
of way to the B. & O. R. R. but the restrictions were so onerous 
that the directors declined. Niles, Vol. 68, p. 310. 

It is worthy of observation that after 1847 "western Virginia" 
is often printed West Virginia. 



54 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

became indifferent to those great enterprises which had 
for their object the union of the various sections of the 
state by a system of canals. Baltimore was looked 
upon as the natural eastern market and while, every- 
thing else being equal, the west would have preferred to 
do business with Richmond, nature had provided other- 
wise. 

February 10, 1846, a bill calling for a constitutional 
convention could have been enacted had the west been 
willing to yield its demand for the white basis of rep- 
resentation, but this they refused to do and the dispute 
dragged on for several years. As the time approached 
for taking the census of 1850 a feeling became mani- 
fest among the western advocates of reform that it 
would be as well to await the census returns, for they 
felt sure that the Trans-Alleghany region would be 
shown to have a clear majority of the white population 
in the state. John Letcher, Governor of Virginia at 
the time of the outbreak of the Civil War, in a speech 
at Wheeling gave expression to this idea : 

"Three years hence another census will have been 
completed. Then it will appear how large a majority 
we are of the citizens of the commonwealth and how 
unjust it is that our fellow citizens of eastern Virginia, 
being a minority of the people, should be able by means 
of their majority in the legislature to govern both east- 
ern and western Virginia for their own advantage. 
You have striven in vain to get this inequality of rep- 
resentation rectified. The same legislative majority 
has used the power of which we complain to make our 
complaints fruitless and to retain the ascendancy now, 



THE PROGRESS OF SECTIONALISM 55 

when they represent a minority of the people, which 
they secured to themselves eighteen years ago while 
they yet represented the majority. There is ... in 
different parts of Virginia every degree of difference 
from the least to the greatest between the slaveholding 
and the non-slaveholding interests of the people. In 
several parts of the state the slaves are two or three 
times as numerous as the whites, and the slaveholding 
interest overrules and absorbs everything.'^ ^ 

Western irritation was well expressed in the editorial 
columns of the largest newspaper in that section: 

''Is there any strong line of demarcation between 
the different sections? Is the fact of residing above 
tidewater, east or west of the Blue Ridge, on the Ohio 
or on the Atlantic, a good and sufficient reason why 
distinction should be made in the grant of legislative 
power? If so, then the fact forms good grounds for a 
separate state government. If the west is not capable 
of self-government and it is not granted, then the west 
is in a state of colonial dependence and deemed un- 
worthy of a fair and equal association, and either de- 
serves the fostering care that a territory or colony de- 
serves or a separate and distinct government. Colonies 
and territories are generally refused a representation 
. . . but the expenses of their government are paid for 
them. . . . Not so free, liberal, democratic Virginia. 
She holds her western colony in subjection, denies her 
representation; taxes her in full proportion to her 
population; kindly calls on her sons to defend her in 
war . . . and yet expends nothing upon her or for her 
benefit." ^ 

^ Wheeling Intelligencer. 

^ Niles Register, Vol. 68, p. 390, quoting The Western Virginian. 



56 THE DISRUPTION OF TIRGINIA 

In 1850 a division in the western delegation in the 
General Assembly enabled the legislature to pass an 
act calling for a constitutional convention, delegates to 
be chosen on the mixed basis. The west opposed the 
convention on the ground that every white person was 
to have just a little more than half as much weight as 
a dollar in taxes, since the white population of the 
state was 887,717 and the revenue tax amounted to 
$472,516.31. Thus every $7,000 elected one delegate 
and every 13,151 white persons chose one delegate.^ 
In the popular vote on the question of calling a conven- 
tion twenty-nine of the forty-three western counties 
were recorded in the negative. All but two of the east- 
ern counties voted in its favor. It is a noteworthy fact 
that every county in the Valley gave a majority for 
the convention — unimpeachable evidence that the two 
districts west of the Blue Ridge were no longer of the 
same political mind.^ The people of the state ex- 
pressed themselves as approving of a change in the 
organic law of the state by a majority of 25,000, which 
is sufficient proof that Tidewater Virginia for the first 
time conceded the need of reform. This fact is illus- 
trated by the changed attitude of the Richmond 
Enquirer^ which now came out unreservedly for a thor- 
ough renovation of a "system universally repudiated by 
all who have any confidence in the capacity of men for 
self-government . ' ' 

^J. A. C. Chandler, "History of Suffrage in Virginia," Johns 
Hopkins University Studies, Series 19, pp. 279-346. 
^ Ambler, "Sectionalism in Virginia," p. 260. 



THE PKOGRESS OF SECTIONALISM 57 

Alarm was felt over the economic condition of the 
state. Emigration from the eastern counties was tak- 
ing place to such an extent that many of them showed 
an actual decrease in population. Newspapers of the 
time contained almost daily accounts of the removal of 
young men from the homes of their fathers to some 
point farther west. That measures had to be taken to 
check this movement was becoming evident: 

"We want something here to reanimate and revive 
the people. We have slept on until we require to be 
aroused. . . . But let us not run to excess. Give the 
people more power. . . . Make them take an interest 
in their government by imposing on them the duty of 
selecting more of the agents of that government, and 
we doubt not that these functionaries will be more com- 
petent for the faithful discharge of their duties than 
those heretofore elected. We shall become a fresher 
and more animated people." 

The election of delegates to the convention was held 
on the fourth Thursday in August, 1850. In nearly 
every county the chief issue raised was that of the 
basis of representation. In the east Henry A. Wise was 
the only delegate to be elected on a platform favoring 
the white basis in both House and Senate. With 
characteristic boldness he declared himself in favor 
of a liberal public school system, equality of represen- 
tation, and the rule of the majority. Representation 
based on slaves who had no political voice or entity, on 
carriages which were luxuries, and on licenses to sell 
whisky he pronounced as fundamentally aristocratic. 



58 THE DISRUPTION OF YIEGINIA 

Wise further advocated biennial sessions of the legisla- 
ture, the abolition of imprisonment for debt, universal 
male suffrage, and the election by the people of all 
important state and local officers.^ 

As might be expected, every delegate from the Trans- 
Alleghany was pledged to the white basis of representa- 
tion in both houses of the legislature. The people of 
the Valley were in the fortunate position where reform 
could neither make nor mar their fortunes and were 
naturally less interested in the convention than the 
other sections of the state. Scanning the names of the 
one hundred and thirty-five delegates chosen, one can- 
not but be struck by the fact that a new generation had 
sprung up in the past two decades. There was not a 
prominent member of the convention of 1829-30 pres- 
ent in 1850 to assist in the making of Virginia's third 
constitution. The Leighs, Madisons, Monroes, Mar- 
shalls, Doddridges, Campbells, and Randolphs had few 
compeers on the floor of this convention. There were 
many who became prominent in the Civil War period, 
notably, M. R. H. Garnett, John Minor Botts, John 
Janney, John Letcher, John S. Carlile, Benjamin R. 
Floyd, C. J. Faulkner, and W. T. Willey ; but few of 
these men had attained more than local prominence in 
1850. 

The convention organized with John Y. Mason as 

President. In his opening address Mason was careful 

to avoid any direct reference to the sectional questions 

at issue and urged his fellow members to recall the fact 

* Wise, "The Life of Henry A. Wise," pp. 144-145. 



THE PEOGRESS OF SECTIONALISM 59 

that "patriotism knows no section." ^ After the usual 
skirmishing for position by the various factions, com- 
mittees were appointed to take under consideration the 
main points at issue. The most important, that of the 
basis and apportionment of representation, was to be 
considered by men chosen in equal numbers from the 
east and the west. This principle was observed pretty 
generally in the selection of all committees. Party 
lines were so tightly drawn that there was scarcely a 
person whose views were not known to his colleagues. 
It soon became evident that much of what was to be 
! accomplished would be based on statistical reports, and 
, this being the case the better part of wisdom was to 
j adjourn until the results of the census of 1850 were 
f known. So on November 4th the western delegates suc- 
I ceeded in carrying through their plan of adjourning 
I until January 6, 1851. The east, fearing that the new 
! census would give their opponents an important ad- 
* vantage by revealing the eastern minorities, fought the 
point bitterly, but it was carried by a majority of four 
votes. ^ 

The convention reassembled at the time designated 
and remained in session until August first. Its pro- 
ceedings were characterized, generally, by an intense 
desire on all sides to come to some satisfactory agree- 
ment and while there was a great display of sectional 
feeling and numerous threats of secession were made, 
nevertheless the general tone of the convention was of a 

* Journal, Virginia Convention of 1850-51, pp. 5-6. 
'Ibid., p. 75. 



60 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

more conciliatory nature than that which had pre- 
vailed at other times when representatives from the dif- 
ferent sections of the state had gathered together for 
such a purpose. There was really only one big question 
to settle: that of the basis of representation. The ex- 
tension of the ballot to all men over twenty-one years 
of age was practically assured before the convention 
met, and all other issues were comparatively unim- 
portant or susceptible of satisfactory compromise. 

The committee on representation struggled hard to 
reach a conclusion acceptable to all, but was compelled 
to report finally that it was "equally divided in opinion, 
twelve of its members agreeing and adhering to one 
principle of representation and the other twelve mem- 
bers agreeing and adhering to another and different 
principle." ^ Two plans were submitted — one, that of 
the eastern delegates providing for a lower house of 
one hundred and fifty-six members and a Senate of 
fifty-one members, while the western recommendation 
was for a House of one hundred and fifty-six members 
and a Senate of thirty-six. The eastern apportion- 
ment was based on a combination of suffrage and taxa- 
tion, one seventy-fifth of the total taxation giving a 
member regardless of population. The principal ad- 
vocates of this plan, Scott, Barbour, and Stanard, af- 
firmed that any other basis would give the west a pre- 
dominance in the legislature to which it was not entitled 
by virtue of its share in taxation.^ Thus their scheme 

^Report of the Committee on the Basis of Representation: 
Journal of the Convention, appendix, pp. 1-5. 
^ "Life of Henry A. Wise," p. 148. 



THE PROGRESS OF SECTIONALISM 61 

would give the east eighty-two delegates and twenty- 
eight Senators, and the west sixty-eight delegates and 
twenty-three Senators. The western members of th^ 
committee based their report on white population and 
suffrage alone, conceding seventy-one delegates and 
seventeen Senators to the east, while the west was to 
be represented by eighty-five delegates and nineteen 
Senators.-^ 

The white population west of the Blue Ridge at this 

time was nearly 100,000 in excess of that of the cis- 

montane region, so the issue was clearly drawn : Should 

property as well as persons be represented? With this 

problem the convention wrestled for four months and 

I at the end of that time had arrived at no conclusion. 

I Many compromises were suggested and rejected, some- 

j times without consideration. One would divide repre- 

j sentation in both houses equally between the two grand 

j divisions of the state. ^ A proposal of Mr. Summers to 

allow the people to decide the question was turned down 

by a strictly sectional vote, the east not caring to take 

j their chances with the hostile western majority. 

I Henry A. Wise suggested that until 1861 the east be 

j given the majority in both Houses, and after that time 

I representation be apportioned according to the number 

of qualified voters. For five days Mr. Wise spoke in 

' favor of the white basis. He denounced a system which 

j ^ The counties included in the present state of West Virginia 
would have been given thirty-six delegates and ten Senators by 

I the eastern plan, and forty-nine delegates and eleven Senators 
by the western plan. 

^ This suggestion by Mr. Botts was derided by the Richmond 
Examiner as chimerical as his speech was inane. 



62 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

would give $132,000 more weight in the government 
than 94,000 white persons. "Give us an united people 
with one affection, one interest, one feeling, one im- 
pulse. . . . Give me for the people of Virginia free 
and universal education; give me free and equal suf- 
frage; give me free and universal representation for 
our people and who can foretell our destiny ?" ^ are his 
final words. His exhortations were of no avail and 
this proposal was rejected. 

As the debates grew more acrimonious, talk of a divi- 
sion of the state was revived. Several eastern delegates 
declared that they would favor separation if the white 
basis were adopted ; ^ an article in the New York 
Tribune claiming that the west would abolish slavery 
when they got the power into their hands was quoted 
frequently on the floor of the convention.^ The leading 
Democratic organ of Richmond * predicted dismember- 
ments of the state unless a better spirit was exhibited 
on both sides : 

"Such a result we should regard as a most melancholy 
catastrophe. ... If Virginia cannot regulate her in- 
ternal affairs, if the interests and feelings of her citi- 
zens are so diverse and so conflicting that the noble old 
state must be severed in twain, what reasonable hope 
can we entertain that the vast line of states stretching 
from one ocean to another can resist the divellent forces 
and survive dissolution.^ . . . Virginia divided; the 

*"Life of Henry A. Wise," p. 150. 
*Ibid. 

* Weekly Pennsylvanian, Apr. 26, 1851. 

* ThB Enquirer, 



THE PROGRESS OF SECTIONALISM 63 

Union dissolved . . . ; what an awful record would be 
spread out for the pages of history !" ^ 

An ill-chosen remark by Mr. Chilton of Fauquier 
County that "we must have an infusion of monarchical 
and aristocratic principles in order to check pure 
democracy" aroused the ire of the liberals. Wise re- 
torted, "your doctrines have been for seventy-odd years 
too much regarded." ^ The west, led by Joseph John- 
son, the only Trans-Alleghany governor Virginia had 
chosen previous to 1860, began to take active steps for 
the dismemberment of the state, which course was de- 
clared to be entirely factious and unjustifiable and one 
that would excite strong feeling throughout the state. 
The east, it was asserted, having a clear majority and 
able to decide upon the mixed basis had nevertheless 
offered to compromise and had proposed liberal terms 
which the west had rejected. Therefore the responsi- 
bility for what might happen rested upon this section.^ 
After it was perceived that neither of the reports 
brought in by the original committee could be adopted, 
a new committee of eight, evenly divided between the 
two factions, was elected on May 12th.* The western 
members of this committee, proving more complaisant 
than had been expected, consented to bring in a report 
giving the majority in the Senate to the east and the 
majority in the House to the west. By a majority of 

^ The Enquirer, Apr. 15, 1851. 
' Weekly Pennsylvanian, Mar. 29, 1851. 
•Alexandria Gazette, May 14, 1851. 
* Journal of the Convention, p. 206. 



64 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

one this plan was turned down. A reconsideration of 
the report led to a succession of compromises, ending 
finally in the adoption of a plan providing for a House 
of one hundred and fifty-two members and a Senate of 
fifty, the west to control the lower, and the east, the 
upper house. A reapportionment of representatives 
should be made in 1865 and every ten years thereafter, 
and in the event that the General Assembly failed to 
provide for this the governor was to submit four ques- 
tions to the voters giving them their choice of the "suf- 
frage basis" in both houses, the "mixed basis" in both 
houses, the "taxation basis" in the Senate, or the 
"mixed basis" in the Senate and the "suffrage basis" 
in the House. The acceptance of this plan ended a 
contest which had occupied the center of the stage for 
thirty years. Neither party was entirely satisfied, but 
the belief prevailed that the west had a little the better 
of the bargain, especially as it gave that section 
a majority of four on joint ballot. -"^ 

As for the other points at issue, universal manhood 
suffrage was easily carried through — an impressive 
commentary on the modification of political ideas in 
Virginia ; the sessions of the legislature were to be held 
biennially; and all important state officers from the 
Governor down were to be elected by popular vote.^ 
Thus the principal points for which the west had 
fought for three decades were finally won and Virginia 

* One of the first results of the new constitution was the elec- 
tion of a Governor and two U. S. Senators from the west. 

^ There was little opposition to the abolition of the Governor's 
CounciL 



THE PROGRESS OF SECTIONALISM 65 

was at last qualified to call herself a truly democratic 
state. 

One clause was inserted in the constitution under 
taxation and finance which was destined to cause mis- 
chief. Sections 23 and 24 provided for the assessment 
of all property other than slaves according to its full 
value. Slaves under twelve years of age were exempt 
from taxation altogether ; all others were to be assessed 
at $300 per capita. 

The new constitution won its way gradually to pop- 
ularity. It had gone further toward reform than the 
east desired, as is shown by the fact that when it came 
to a question of its adoption or rejection by the people 
the east voted against it.^ The campaign against rati- 
fication was carried on vigorously, but opposition grew 
less and less as election day approached and when the 
ballots were counted it was found that the new instru- 
ment of government had been adopted 75,784 to 
11,063.2 

For the next ten years little complaint was heard 
from any part of the state. It is true that rumors 
were circulated and gained credence that the white 
planters were intimidating the poor whites at every 
election, but all in all, Virginia from 1850 to 1860 en- 
joyed a period of political quiet unparalleled in her 
history. _ 

* Ambler, "Sectionalism in Virginia," p. 271. 
'Ibid. 



CHAPTER VII 

WESTERN VIRGINIA AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR 

As HAS been suggested, the constitution of 1851 was 
satisfactory to the west in all but two particulars ; viz., 
the basis of representation in the upper house and the 
partial exemption of slave property from taxation. 
Even these alleged grievances could scarcely be called 
burning issues previous to the time when it appeared 
possible that Virginia might secede from the Union. 
Then they were seized with avidity by the north-western 
leaders, were used as a club by these men in the Rich- 
mond Convention and, when the ordinance of secession 
was passed before redress was assured, they became the 
chief basis of almost every speech in favor of the dis- 
solution of the state, with the Alleghanies as the divid- 
ing line. 

In the presidential election of 1860 western Virginia ^ 
had exhibited as great a variety of opinions as any sec- 
tion in the United States. Breckenridge carried eight- 
een counties. Bell, fifteen, and Douglas, two. Han- 
cock County was evenly divided between Lincoln and 
Breckenridge, while the other counties scattered their 

^ The term "western Virginia" will from this point on be un- 
derstood to include only those counties now in the state of West 
Virginia. 

66 



AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR 67 

votes among all the candidates. Lincoln received 1,929 
votes, nearly all of which were cast in the northern 
Panhandle.-^ It is difficult to imagine any election less 
sectional in its character. Each candidate, excepting 
Lincoln, had a large number of supporters in the west- 
ern counties, and the heavy vote polled by Brecken- 
ridge in the counties of the northwest had its counter- 
part in the "black belt" of the southeast. Looking at 
the map of the election of 1860 showing the vote by 
counties, one not familiar with the situation would be 
puzzled to discover any foundation for the common 
belief that West Virginia was strongly anti-slavery. 
But such was the general opinion in the North at the 
time, and a great deal of sympathy was wasted upon 
the free-soil inhabitants of western Virginia. But what 
had become of the persons who had moved into this sec- 
tion from the North and who had brought with them 
such decided views upon the slavery question.'' Where 
were they at the time when the issue was clearly that 
of Lincoln, with his well-known views upon slavery, 
against the other candidates for the presidency, with 
their varying support of the institution.? In western 
Virginia outside of the northern Panhandle Lincoln 
was given practically no support, even in thoce counties 
where few slaves were held. It may be that the viva 
voce method of voting acted as a deterrent in some 
slavery strongholds, but this could not have been im- 
portant. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that 

^ Ambler, "Sectionalism in Virginia," p. 330. Virginia gave 
Bell a plurality of 319 popular votes over Breckenridge. 



68 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

if the result of the election in western Virginia has any 
meaning at all it means that the people of that section 
had little more sympathy with the anti-slavery propa- 
ganda than had their eastern brethren.^ It is true that 
western Virginia had not the same passionate devotion 
to the institution that eastern Virginia had. Such a 
thing would not be possible where so few slaves were 
held. But it cannot be controverted, that, whatever 
may be the popular opinion to the contrary, the whole 
state of Virginia from the Ohio River to the Atlantic 
Ocean and from Pennsylvania and Maryland to Ken- 
tucky and North Carolina was pretty well united on 
the general issues of slavery and states' rights. The 
differences of opinion that existed in Virginia in 1861 
were not national in their character but entirely sec- 
tional, brought out at this time principally for the 
purpose of enabling the people of one small portion of 
the state lying mainly in the valleys of the Monongahela 
and the upper Ohio to accomplish something which they 
believed would benefit their locality and to which they 
were urged by the Republican leaders in Congress. 

Daniel Webster in a Fourth of July oration deliv- 
ered at Washington in 1851 sounded a note of warn- 
ing to Trans-Alleghany Virginia. His words on this 
occasion proclaim the prophet: 

"Ye men of western Virginia who occupy the great 
slope from the top of the Alleghany to the Ohio and 

*An editorial in the Kanawha Valley Star, Aug. 31, 1858, 
states that there were more abolitionists east of the Blue Ridge 
than west. 



AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR 69 

Kentucky, what course do you propose to yourselves 
by disunion? If you secede what do you secede from 
and what do you accede to? Do you look for the cur- 
rent of the Ohio to change and to bring you and your 
commerce to the tidewaters of the eastern rivers ? What 
man in his senses can suppose that you will remain 
part and parcel of Virginia a month after Virginia 
should have ceased to be part and parcel of the United 
States?" 1 

The truth of this was clearly perceived in 1861 by 
all but those who willfully blinded themselves to the true 
state of affairs and who still asserted that when the 
crisis came "there would be no Alleghanies." Webster^s 
speech was no longer an abstraction. Many times from 
November, 1860, to May, 1861, did the people of the 
west ask themselves the very questions which Webster 
had formulated nine years before. What would be- 
come of them if Virginia seceded? The difficulty of 
their situation appears when we glance at the map, 
which helps to explain why the western counties were 
opposed to leaving the Union. They had no desire to 
see themselves isolated from the southern states and 
exposed to the mercies of an invading army from the 
north. The counties bordering on the Ohio and those 
drained by the upper waters of the Monongahela were 
so close to Ohio and Pennsylvania that in the event 
of war they could be overrun by Federal troops in a 
few days. The largest city in the section. Wheeling, 
was only sixty-six miles distant from Pittsburgh. Its 

^National Intelligencer, July 5, 1851, 



70 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

large manufacturing interests could be destroyed 
easily forty-eight hours after war was declared. Other 
Ohio river towns occupied positions only a degree less 
exposed. Troops concentrating at Pittsburgh could 
penetrate into the very heart of western Virginia simply 
by going up the Monongahela River. Passing down 
the Ohio River they could unite with the forces of Ohio, 
Indiana, and Illinois and carry the war back into the 
interior for a hundred miles, either by boat up the 
Little Kanawha and the Great Kanawha or on foot. 
Only the southern and southwestern counties could feel 
any degree of assurance that the war would not imme^ 
diately bring about an invasion of their region. These 
counties not only took no real part in the formation 
of the new state of West Virginia but opposed it as 
far as they were able. 

Thus secession loomed up as a terrible calamity to 
western Virginia. No one expected the eastern coun- 
ties to drain their resources in order to defend the west, 
and the people of the latter section were not so deeply 
imbued with the wrongs of the South that they could 
enter into a war with anything resembling enthusiasm. 
Western leaders made their position known long before 
the Civil War broke out. They did not desire to 
emulate the example of the Scotch Highlanders and 
retreat to the fastnesses of the mountains when at- 
tacked. Their cry was, "Let us alone"; and, had it 
not been for the activities of a small group of persons 
from the northwest, it is altogether likely that their 



AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR 71 

desire to keep aloof from both sides would have resulted 
in the preservation of the state. 

Waitman T. Willey, whose stand on the question of 
dividing the state was undecided before he was elected 
to the U. S. Senate, wrote : 

"I am for Virginia as she is and was ; as our fathers 
created her . . . one and indivisible. I have depre- 
cated recent manifestations for her dismemberment. 
Let her be integral forever. But if we are to be dragged 
into secession or disunion ; become a mere outside ap- 
pendage of a Southern Confederacy, defenseless and 
exposed as we must be by our geographical position 
. . . our oppression may become intolerable, and I for 
one will be ready to accept the only alternative." ^ 

A further presentation of the difficulties confronting 
western Virginia is given in a paper published in the 
interior of the state: 

"Her territory presents such an immense exposed 
border, should she resolve to join in with the Southern 
Confederacy, it would be impossible for the people to 
defend themselves against an invasion from the North. 
And in such an event eastern Virginia can afford us 
no assistance; nor can she expect us to leave our homes 
and come to her aid. The North, we believe, will not 
invade us if we stand firm where we are, and the east 
has not the means of compelling us to abandon our 
defenceless homes." ^ 

^National Intelligencer, Jan. 9, 1861. 

* Kingwood Chronicle, Apr, 27, 1861, quoted in National Inr- 
encer. May 2, 1861. 



72 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

An even more graphic description appears in the 
Wheeling Intelligencer: -"^ 

"We are as powerless as an infant would be in the 
grasp of Hercules. They could crush us in a day. 
Cannon planted on the Ohio hills would lay us in ruin. 
Never did a people occupy a more unenviable position 
for a hostile collision with their neighbors. Where, 
in case of collision are we to look for help? From 
Richmond, away off across the mountains? We might 
as well look to the moon for help. She will have her 
hands full and it will keep her busy enough to enter- 
tain Jeff Davis's army of occupation. No help there 
for us. The Secessionists here must remember that 
Pennsylvania has never yet abandoned her claim to 
this strip of territory.^ On the contrary, she has again 
and again asserted her claim to it. Suppose we were 
now to set ourselves against the Government. Why, 
she would have us in a week's time." 

A mass meeting at Wellsburg, Brooke County, 
adopted a resolution against secession on the ground 
that their section, the northern Panhandle, would be 
most adversely affected, occupying as it did the most 
northern point of southern territory and bounded by 
Ohio and Pennsylvania, "with whom we are so closely 
connected in social, political, and commercial inter- 
ests." ^ A New York newspaper pins its faith to West 
Virginia because it "gravitated by kindred attraction 
to the north." * 

*Apr. 20, 1861. 

* Referring to the northern Panhandle, over which Virginia 
and Pennsylvania had disputed for many years. 

» Wellsburg Herald, Feb. 2, 1861. 

* New York Times, May 1, 1861. 



AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR 73 

It is not surprising that when the first distinct mut- 
terings of war were heard, western Virginia was seized 
with alarm. All her old sectional wrongs came up to 
her again as the means whereby Virginia might be 
kept from secession. The only alternative, the disrup- 
tion of the state, was to be used as the last resort. In 
the meantime a chorus of protests arose against taking 
any steps that might lead to civil war. When her 
cry was unregarded and the trend toward war was 
clearly perceived, some of the old sectional bitterness 
was revived. The situation was described as one of 
confusion, conflict, and strife. "Western Virginia has 
always been trodden upon by the aristocracy of eastern 
Virginia in various ways. That most particular is 
the three fifths representation which has always been 
and always will be regarded as the very essence of 
injustice." ^ The writer of this communication shows 
that western Virginia had 135,000 more whites than 
eastern Virginia but that out of thirteen members of 
the national House of Representatives, West Virginia 
had but five. "So," he continued, "western Virginia 
is literally ruled by the almighty nigger. The senti- 
ments of western Virginia are different, our customs, 
our laws are different, and have long called for re- 
dress." In an address at Wheeling, May 23, 1860, 
Francis H. Pierpoint, afterward war governor of the 
state, claimed that $900,000 a year was lost to the 
state through the exemption of slaves under twelve 
from taxation and the under-assessment of those over 

» Letter to the New York Herald, Oct. 5, 1860. 



74 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

that age. He asserted that the state debt had been 
increased from $16,000,000 to $46,000,000 since 1851, 
all for internal improvements in eastern Virginia. 
Slaves were taxed ten cents on the hundred dollars and 
all other property forty cents on the hundred dollars. 
The income of the slaveholder was not taxed one cent 
while that of the laborer earning $400 a year was taxed 
$4.80. Later Pierpoint wrote: "The clerk, machinist, 
etc., pays $22.80 for the state if his income is $1,100 
a year; a slaveholder with nineteen slaves will derive 
$300 a year from them and pay not one cent for income 
tax. When the clerk dies or is sick his wages cease 
but the slaves go down as an inheritance to his chil- 
dren." 1 

Western Virginia was only mildly interested in the 
great national issue of the day. Caring little about 
slavery as a social or economic institution, the alleged 
wrongs of the South caused little concern to the people 
of this section, although they were far from counte- 
nancing the methods of the Northern Abolitionists. The 
feeling prevailed that if complaint should be made it 
would be against the domineering actions of the slave- 
holders of the east rather than against the people of 
the non-slaveholding states. So far as the loss of slaves 
through the underground railroad was concerned, west- 
ern Virginia suffered more, proportionately, than did 
eastern Virginia. As was stated by one of the western 
newspapers: "Western Virginia will lose hundreds of 
slaves while South Carolina would not know the result 

* Wheeling Intelligencer, May 24, 1860. 



AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR 75 

of the Northern nullification laws. Western Virginia 
to the present day has suffered more from the oppres- 
sive dictation of her eastern brethren than even the cot- 
ton states all put together have suffered from the 
northern personal liberty laws." ^ A Morgantown 
newspaper asserted that "the grievances of the people 
of West Virginia against the state of Virginia are ten- 
fold greater than those of the South against the 
North." Of $1,147,346.00 raised annually in the 
state almost nothing was spent in the west ; $195,000,- 
000 worth of property was released from taxation in 
the east; no state-built railroads or canals were to be 
found west of the AUeghanies. "We have been hewers 
of wood and drawers of water for eastern Virginia long 
enough and it is time that section understood it," ^ A 
letter from Wayne County to the Wheeling Intelli- 
gencer shows clearly that a certain portion of the peo- 
ple of the west had become opportunists. The division 
of the state should be insisted upon if a reform in 
methods of taxation was not adopted at once.^ The 
disposition of the western leaders to take advantage of 
the crisis in Virginia was much deplored in the con- 
vention which was later assembled at Richmond, but 
their action may be palliated because of the fact that 
they were fighting not only for self-preservation but 
also for the preservation of the Union. 

^ Clarksburg Ouard. Quoted in Wheeling Intelligencer, Jan. 16, 
1861. 

* Morgantown Star. Quoted in Wheeling Intelligencer, Jan. 14, 
1861. 

^ Wheeling Intelligencer, Jan. 16, 1861. 



76 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

The east had plenty of warning that local politics 
would be injected into the Richmond convention, for 
the newspapers of the east quoted and commented on 
articles appearing in the western journals serving 
notice upon the east that if a convention were ever 
held, more would he talked about than the question of 
secession: 

"If a state convention is called, the first question to 
be settled is the basis of representation. The west 
will accept nothing but the white basis. The conven- 
tion must have power to amend the constitution of the 
state, at least that part which exempts a large portion 
of the slave property from taxation. If our eastern 
brethren withhold these rights from the west, it will 
take 100,000 bayonets from a southern confederacy 
to force western Virginia into a union with the cotton 
states. We want all these questions settled before we 
join partnership with South Carolina." ^ 

The inference one would draw from the above is that 
western Virginia could have been bribed into voting 
for secession. That such was the case we do not be- 
lieve. It is possible that some of the delegates to the 
convention may have given the impression that it would 
require merely the alteration of the constitution in two 
particulars to bring the western counties over on the 
side of secession; but the people of the west would 
never have sustained this action of their representa- 
tives.^ 

*The Alexandrian Gazette, Marion Co. correspondent. Quoted 
in National Intelligencer, Oct. 24, 1860. 

'The Richmond Enquirer charged that a bargain was being 
made whereby the east would not press secession if the west 



AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR 77 

Throughout the South at this time the feeling ex- 
isted that any state or portion of states south of the 
Mason and Dixon line which opposed secession was 
disloyal. While this sentiment was strongest in the 
cotton states, there was a considerable element in Vir- 
ginia that took the same position in reference to the 
well-known opposition of the west to leaving the Union. 
Their attitude was that loyalty to the Union was in- 
compatible with the rights and interests of the slave- 
holding class. ^ 

At the opening of 1861 a call was issued for a special 
session of the legislature. Western Virginia opposed 
this action, foreseeing that an effort would be made to 
summon a state convention which might, by ordinance, 
dissolve the bonds which united Virginia to the Union. 
This was possible because a convention of the people 
superseded, for the time being, both legislature and con- 
stitution, and its action might be made final without 
reference to the people who had called it together. It 
was urged, on the other hand, that Virginia should be 
allowed to proceed with her plans for disunion, but while 
that was going on western Virginia could call upon 
the Federal Government for aid and institute proceed- 
ings for a new state. ^ It was the general feeling that 
the calling of a convention was the first step toward 

would drop its demands for a new tax system. The Wheeling 
Intelligencer jeered at the Enquirer for its publication of this 
charge and said that the west would gain both of its objects. 

^ National Intelligencer, Jan. 16, 1861. 

" Wellsburg Herald, Dec. 10, 1860. 



78 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

secession and that its advocates in the legislature sym- 
pathized with the actions of South Carolina.-^ 

In the special legislative session of January, 1861, 
the western representatives took little part in the de- 
bate over the calling of a convention. The eastern 
members were resolved to bring together such a body 
and the pro-Union members from the west were not 
strong enough numerically to check such an action. It 
is a fact that the Assembly was far more inclined toward 
radical measures than the convention which it sum- 
moned; known supporters of the Union were given no 
hearing,^ and the bill calling for a convention was put 
through in all possible haste. 

At first there was some sentiment in the northern 
part of western Virginia favoring the non-election of 
delegates to represent that section. Such an act would 
have exhibited the disapproval of the people in a man- 
ner not to be misunderstood ; then if this warning failed 
and secession was resolved upon, an opportunity would 
be given for the formation of a new state. ^ Calmer 
counsel prevailed, however, and the west elected its full 
quota of delegates, taking the precaution of sending 
persons who pledged themselves to oppose secession. 
In every town of the northwest rousing mass meetings 
were held in which resolutions were adopted denounc- 
ing the eastern Secessionists. Northern newspapers 
printed letters and dispatches sent by correspondents 

1 Wheeling Intelligencer, Dec. 20, 1860. 

^ Senator Caldwell of Wheeling was not assigned to a com- 
mittee. 
^ Wheeling Intelligencer, Jan. 5, 1861. 



AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR 79 

or residents of this section, declaring that the whole 
country was ablaze with Union enthusiasm. It is not 
surprising that people in the North obtained an erro- 
neous impression of the sentiment of the western Vir- 
ginians. Newspaper correspondents mistook the anti- 
secession feeling, which was indeed overwhelming, for a 
pro-Union feeling which certainly did not exist to the 
extent they thought. Later, when the pressure of 
danger was removed, the indifference and the inertia 
of western Virginia brought upon her many reproaches 
from the Northerners, who openly declared that they 
had been deceived into thinking that the people of 
western Virginia were heart and soul for the Northern 
cause. At the time when it appeared likely that Vir- 
ginia would be "hitched to the tail of a cotton con- 
federacy" and the western region of the state would 
become the rear guard of the South, there were many 
indications that western Virginia would do all in her 
power to prevent the United States from being severed 
in twain. The newspapers of the North were assured 
that practically no Secessionists could be found in the 
Trans-Alleghany country, at least north of the Great 
Kanawha. A writer living in Wood County declared 
that "for every Secessionist there were one hundred 
Unionists who would accept a division of the state of 
Virginia as preferable to the dissolution of the 
Union." ^ It may fairly be inferred from this that the 

^National Intelligencer, Jan. 9, 1861. My father, Harlan Page 
McGregor, who lived in Wood County during the Civil War, has 
always declared that the Secessionists there outnumbered the 
Unionists three to one. 



80 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

Union men of the state were necessarily looking for- 
ward to the division of the state only as a last resort. 
The commonly accepted idea that the western Vir- 
ginians were only waiting for the opportunity to de- 
clare their independence of Virginia is demonstrably 
false, for if we read between the lines of almost any 
western resolutions of the time we can see that the 
disruption of Virginia was not regarded as one of the 
possible future blessings, but on the contrary was only 
to be used as a final alternative. Many who appar- 
ently favored such a move did so because they thought 
it would be an effective means of keeping Virginia out 
of the Southern Confederacy.^ 

Newspapers of the western counties sent their appeal 
out broadcast, urging the people to assemble in mass 
meeting and show their disapproval of the actions of 
the state legislature. In Monongalia County it was 
asserted that there were not one thousand men out 
of the twelve thousand voters of that district who 
were favorable to the secession doctrines. Any act 
tending toward disunion should be resisted to the death. 
The following passionate appeal was made to the loyal 
citizens : 

"We call on you people of western Virginia to 

awake, arise. If you are, like ourselves, poor in purse 

you can afford to be indifferent, for there is nothing 

*The declaration of a Grafton newspaper in its first issue 
is of this variety: "We are for the interests and rights of west- 
ern Virginia in the state and in the Union if they can be had 
at the same time; but if they are made to conflict with each 
other we are for western Virginia in the Union." — The Western 
Virginian, Jan. 6, 1861. 



AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVH. WAR 81 

but your life in danger. But if you are a farm owner 
your all is in danger and if you do not awake to the 
importance of your interests and battle for them you 
will soon find your property confiscated. If you are 
for the preservation of the Union let it be known. We 
here warn you to beware the insidious smiles of 
secession. It commenced as a peaceable lamb and has 
increased step by step until it has become a monster 
of power. Again we call upon you to arouse to your 
interests ; to choose whether you shall be for or against 
your country." ^ 

Judging from the many references to be found to 
the "wolves in sheep's clothing" and the "Judas 
Iscariots," there must have been more Secessionists in 
the northwestern counties than is generally believed. 
That their number was not negligible is shown by the 
fact that editors were continually castigating their 
loyal readers for their apathy and were continually 
warning the people of what would happen if these 
traitors were not put down. Secessionism was never 
blatant in the northwest. Its advocates were careful 
not to let their views become too well known, for in 
almost every community they were outnumbered, at 
least before June, 1861. There is a strong probability, 
furthermore, that they composed for the most part the 
less substantial class of citizens, those who had no prop- 
erty to lose. But it cannot be emphasized too emphat- 
ically that strong supporters of the Southern cause 
were to be found in every part of western Virginia in 

^The Morgantown Star. Quoted in Wheeling Intelligencer, 
Jap. 9, 1861. 



82 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

far greater numbers than one would suspect. The 
truth of this assertion is attested by the events in 
western Virginia after the "old state" had seceded — 
which events are reserved for a later chapter. 

In the event of the passage of an ordinance of seces- 
sion the people west of the Blue Ridge were urged to 
call a convention "for the purpose of adopting such 
a course as ought to be pursued, so that West Virginia 
may secede from eastern Virginia and form a new state 
in the Union." ^ A letter to the Wheeling Intelligencer 
advised western Virginia to act for herself if the state 
seceded and promised the aid of the Valley.^ Pitts- 
burgh papers sent special correspondents through 
northwestern Virginia for the pui*pose of ascertaining 
the drift of public sentiment, and all reported the same 
thing: West Virginia was resolved to remain in the 
Union and would not follow the gulf states under any 
circumstances. It is little wonder that the readers of 
these journals were surprised and grieved some months 
later when they learned that it was almost impossible 
to raise Union troops in those very districts which had 
been reported to be burning with zeal for the Union. ^ 

Not all declarations against secession show the same 
degree of fervor. Many persons calling themselves 
Unionists opposed secession because of the certain in- 
crease of taxation.* A series of resolutions adopted 

^ Virginia Plaindealer. Quoted in National Intelligencer, Jan. 
12, 1861. 

"Jan. 7, 1861. The writer signed himself "Shenandoah." 

• Pittsburgh Chronicle, May 10, 1861. 

* Whatever opposition existed to secession south of the Great 
Kanawha was chiefly on tiiis ground. 



AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR 83 

at a mass meeting in Clarksburg shows the practical 
nature of some of the opposition to secession, which 
act, it was declared, would be an abandonment by the 
seceding states of all their rights under the Federal 
Constitution. Since it could not increase the distance 
from the non-slaveholding states, these friendly and 
commercially profitable neighbors would be converted 
into bitter enemies. The last clause of the resolution 
is worthy of note: "That it ill-comports with our idea 
of Southern chivalry and Southern courage to run 
away before we make an effort to defend ourselves from 
apprehended danger." ^ 

The sentiment of the western slaveholding counties 
is exhibited in the following resolutions: 

"First, that the dismemberment of the Union would 
entail upon us a longer and blacker train of woes than 
has ever yet afflicted any people; second, that the 
trouble has been brought about by the wanton and 
wicked fanaticism of the North and the gasconading 
folly a/nd sinister selfishness of the South; third, that 
we recognize the Federal Union within the sphere of 
its appointed duties and delegated powers as positive, 
potential, and paramount in its authority over every 
individual citizen of the nation; fourth, that no state 
or combination of states can absolve herself from her 
duty to her co-states under the Constitution; fifth, 
that as the hasty and precipitate course of South Caro- 
lina has been avowedly predicated upon the intention 
to involve all the slaveholding states in the woes of a 
civil war, therefore we deprecate her conduct as ill- 

» Pittsburgh Chronicle, Feb. 2, 1861. 



84 THE DISEUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

advised, unjust, and disrespectful to her sister states 
of the South." 1 

Along the Ohio River there was much undisguised 
sentiment in favor of the formation of a new state. As 
early as January 7, 1861, before the legislature had 
assembled, one of the papers of this section came out 
with the following: "We are for secession at once and 
let the Blue Ridge Mountains be the line." ^ In the 
same issue appears a letter declaring that if secession 
was the only method by which any portion of the Amer- 
ican people could secure their rights and if it was one 
against which there was no argument, then it was 
applicable to both; or, as it was put in another com- 
munication, "If Virginia secedes from the Union the 
secession of West Virginia from her is a question of 
time." The people of the west were urged to prepare 
themselves for the call of a loyal convention which 
should take "proper measures for forming a new state 
in the Union, or in other words to be ready to secede 
from Virginia the very moment that Virginia shall 
withdraw from the Union . . . believing that the peo- 
ple of West Virginia are hitched by the strong cords 
of their affection to the Constitution and the Union, 
and feeling secure under its broad folds will forever 
defy any such underground engine." ^ With special 
reference to the Wheeling district, it was asserted that 

* National Intelligencer, Jan. 3, 1861. 

** Tyler County Plaindealer. Quoted in Wheeling Intelligencer, 
Jan. 8, 1861. 
' Wheeling Intelligencer, Jan. 1, 1861. 



AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR 85 

the acquiescence of West Virginia in an act of secession 
would strike a death blow to that section : 

"Make us a foreign city to Ohio and Pennsylvania 
and grass will grow on every street next summer. This 
will be our condition and it will be the condition of 
every town and hamlet of West Virginia. In view of 
this fact is it not time that we gave eastern Virginia 
to understand that if she goes into a cotton state con- 
federacy she goes alone and without West Virginia? 
We are as much two people and even more than those 
living on the two sides of the Alps. If we are not, it 
follows that eastern Virginia and western Pennsylvania 
are a united and homogeneous people because the God 
of Nature made us a part of Pennsylvania, while the 
surveyor made us a part of Virginia." 

Referring to the eastern Virginians the writer says : 

"We hardly speak the same language with them. 
They talk about us as New Virginia and most of them 
know as little about us as Asiatic Russia knows about 
European Russia, and there is not near as much sym- 
pathy between us. The capital of the state, Rich- 
mond, is a far-off place where there is little that is 
common to us of western Virginia. If secession is 
pleasing and profitable let her go — ^without the rest." ^ 

The suggestion was made that the northern Pan- 
handle with her population of 48,000 whites, nearly as 

* Wheeling Intelligencer. The Philadelphia North American 
commenting on this says: "As regards Wheeling this is un- 
doubtedly true. The city derives its growth mainly from the 
adjacent districts of Ohio and Pennsylvania and from the 
through trade between the free states of the west and the great 
cities of the east. Let Maryland and Virginia secede and the 
business of the Baltimore and Ohio will be ruined and Wheeling 
would mourn in sackcloth and ashes." 



86 THE DISRUPTION OF TIRGINIA 

many as the state of Florida, could attach herself to 
Pennsylvania.^ At no time, however, does this ques- 
tion seem to have been seriously regarded. 

We close this chapter with an excerpt from a letter 
written by John S. Carlile to the National Intelligencer 
early in 1861 : "Dissolve this Union and hitch Vir- 
ginia to the tail of a Southern Confederacy to stand 
guard and play patrol for King Cotton! I drop the 
pen. I cannot contemplate the picture. I turn with 
horror from such a sight. Oh! for a Jackson to say 
and make good the saying, 'The Federal Union; it 
must and shall be preserved.' " ^ 

^ Wellsburg Herald, Jan. 10, 1861. 
^National Intelligencer, Jan. 5, 1861. 



CHAPTER VIII 

THE PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 

Any recital of the secession of Virginia from the 
Union would be incomplete without some reference to 
the stirring events of the preceding eighteen months. 
Only through such a study can we appreciate the sit- 
uation in which Virginia found herself in 1861, with 
internal discord as well as external pressure to combat. 
The latter forced her hand when she was almost ready 
to assume the role of neutral; a small band of Union 
sympathizers in the west seized the opportunity, se- 
cured the aid of the Federal Government, turned a deaf 
ear to those among them who did not desire to take 
advantage of the old state's embarrassment — and West 
Virginia was the result. 

We shall first take up some of the significant happen- 
ings of the year 1860, passing over the famous raid of 
John Brown in October, 1859, with the comment that 
the suspicious, almost captious attitude of Virginia 
toward the North was partly the result of this hostile 
incursion. The South felt that Brown was only the 
tool of more important men ; that the Abolitionists had 
planned the raid as a warning to slaveholders, which 
was tantamount to declaring war upon slavery. Vir- 

87 



88 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

ginia with her exposed border had for years suffered 
from the activities of the Underground Railroad; in 
western Virginia it was very difficult for the people to 
keep slaves, even had they desired to do so. That the 
people of Virginia were deeply attached to the Union 
cannot be questioned, but there is just as little doubt 
that the long-continued attacks upon slavery, an insti- 
tution recognized but not wholly protected by law, were 
making a heavy drain upon their patriotism. Consid- 
ering the great economic importance of slavery to Vir- 
ginia, it is surprising that the state hesitated so long 
before seceding from the Federal Union. Its re- 
luctance to do so is a tribute to the natural conserva- 
tism that has always been a characteristic of the Old 
Dominion. 

The year 1860 found the people of Virginia in a con- 
dition approaching political hysteria. John Brown's 
raid was still a principal topic of conversation and 
the gubernatorial contest had increased the excitement. 
The successful candidate, John Letcher, had been put 
in the position of endorsing the anti-slavery propa- 
ganda and thus received comparatively little support 
in the east where he carried but two congressional dis- 
tricts.-^ His opponent, William L. Goggin, made the 
race on a strong pro-slavery, states-rights platform, 
but disclaimed any thought of breaking up the Union 

* The Kanawha Valley Star, a western paper, attacked LfCtcher 
for having endorsed the Ruffner anti-slavery pamphlet. In a 
letter to the Richmond South a short time before the election 
Letcher reiterated his belief that slavery was a political and 
social, but not a moral, evU. 



PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 89 

and declared that it must be preserved as long as there 
was any hope that the rights, property and preroga- 
tives of the South could be preserved. The almost 
unanimous support given Letcher by western Virginia 
overcame the large majorities received by Goggin in 
the slavery strongholds, and the former was elected to 
a chair which brought its occupant nothing but worry 
and disappointment. With most of his personal affilia- 
tions in the part of the state that afterwards became 
West Virginia, Letcher as Governor professed to con- 
sider it his duty to go along with the old state and 
share her fortunes. 

As far as national political parties were concerned, 
no great difference in their attitude toward secession 
may be observed in Virginia. The Whig party still 
numbered among its adherents some of the most promi- 
nent men of the state and as a rule they could be 
counted as conservatives. One of their leaders, William 
C. Rives, wrote to a friend late in 1860 that there were 
no evils of misgovernment or maladministration for 
which the multiplied defensive resources of the federa- 
tive system could not in time find an adequate remedy.^ 
Similar views were held by scores of men who were com- 
pelled to admit a few months later that, admirable as 
the national system was, it still possessed one fatal 
defect. 

At the Whig opposition convention held in Richmond 
February, 1860, resolutions were adopted to the effect 
that the general government had no right to interfere 

^National Intelligencer, Oct. 2, 1860. 



90 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

with slavery within the states ; that the South intended 
to stand by the principles laid down in the Compromise 
of 1850, and that it was to the best interests of the 
South to abstain from any efforts looking toward the 
establishment of the foreign slave trade. The conven- 
tion expressed "an immovable attachment for the 
Union" and urged all parties to unite in the endeavor 
to preserve the Union of their fathers. -"^ 

The Democratic party of Virginia was outwardly 
only a degree less pronounced in favor of maintaining 
the Federal Union, so it may be said that nearly all the 
expressions heard favoring the dissolution of the Union 
emanated from private sources.^ 

Schemes for a Southern Confederacy which had been 
fostered by the cotton states under the leadership of 
South Carolina had always been more or less contingent 
on the attitude of Virginia, and never was her position 
of primacy among the Southern states more clearly 

^National Intelligencer, Feb. 24-25, 1860. It is only fair, how- 
ever, to state that in this convention the sentiment expressed by 
Robert Scott that "while he loved and venerated the Union he 
loved Virginia more" was received with general approbation. 

The feeling against the "Black Republicans" was very bitter 
in this convention and cropped out on every occasion. The 
Wheeling Intelligencer was reported by the Richmond Whig, 
Feb. 15, as giving an account of the sending of a Republican 
representative to the convention. The Whig advises him to 
"stay at home and save his money and his bacon." 

^ In a letter to the Richmond Enquirer, Dec. 6, 1860, Secre- 
tary of War Floyd expressed himself as follows: "For one, I 
am not for secession, as long as any honorable effort can be 
made to preserve the Union on a constitutional basis, guaran- 
teeing equality, justice, and protection of the negro property 
of the South. . . . The main study of all should be to prevent 
any collision between the two sections, and most especially the 
shedding of the first drop of blood." 



PRELIMINAKIES OF THE CONVENTION 91 

shown than in the early part of 1861, when the united 
cotton states were bending all their enerp-ies toward 
winning Virginia away from her Northern allegiance. 
In the convention held at Montgomery in May, 1858, 
her representatives, with the exception of Roger A. 
Pryor, held aloof from anything that savored of dis- 
loyalty to the United States. Pryor, indeed, assured 
the delegates that Virginia was loyal to the Southern 
cause, "even the hard-fisted democracy of western Vir- 
ginia"; but it was just as well that they did not pre- 
sume upon this loyalty.-^ At a later time William L. 
Yancey wrote to Pryor that it was no part of their 
plan to include Virginia in the Southern Confederacy, 
at least in the beginning. She, together with the other 
border states, should remain in the Northern Union 
and nullify any attempt at coercion on the part of the 
general government.^ 

In the early part of the legislative session of 1860 
commissioners from South Carolina appeared before 
the Assembly of Virginia and urged that body to sum- 
mon a convention of the people which should take under 
consideration the question of secession from the Union. 
The ostensible purpose was to be the preservation of 
the Union but, as the Richmond Whig remarked, no 
one would be deceived as to the real purpose of the 
convention. Public sentiment was almost universally 

^De Bow's Review, 1858, Vol. 24, pp. 524-606, covering Mont- 
gomery Convention. 

'^National Intelligencer, Nov. 28, 1860. Edmund Rufl&n of 
Virginia, in a speech delivered at Columbia, S. C, expressed the 
same idea, that of making Virginia a buffer state. 



92 THE DISRUPTION OF TIRGINIA 

against the proposition and the commissioners went 
back convinced that it was useless to make any further 
attempts to "fire the heart of the Virginians.'* 

One of these commissioners, Mr. Memminger, made 
an exhaustive report of the condition of affairs in 
Virginia. He was of the opinion that the extent and 
diversity of Virginia impaired the unity of action and 
that nothing could be expected from her until the peo- 
ple of the state were more united. Furthermore, he 
says, most people seemed to think that the rights of 
the state would yet be secured in the Union and it would 
be dangerous to assemble a convention at that tim,e.^ 
William C. Rives in a letter to the Whig asserted that 
there were too many points of divergence between Vir- 
ginia and the cotton states to make a union between 
them either practical or desirable. 

"I glance at these things," said he, "that in the 
Utopia of a Southern Confederacy we should have no 
more harmony and concord . . . than in the great con- 
tinental temple dedicated by our fathers to American 
unity, peace, and freedom. ... If evils arise from 
time to time, let us seek a remedy for them within the 
Union as it is. Let us not upon the sudden appearance 
of a squall or because one or two of the crew have 

*The Vicksburg Whig commends Virginia for her "wise and 
patriotic action." The Lynchburg Virginian expresses pride 
that the state was living up to her splendid traditions. 

The South Carolinians displayed considerable bitterness toward 
Virginia after their emissaries had reported the failure of their 
mission. The Charleston Mercury led the attack, and so 
acrimonious were some of the articles printed in this paper 
that the Alexandria Gazette was forced to warn its Charleston 
contemporary that a continuation of such abuse would drive 
many Virginians over to the Union side. 



PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 93 

mutinied desert the good ship Constitution, abandon 
our comrades, and in a panic betake ourselves to the 
crazy raft of secession which will conduct us we know 
not whither." ^ 

It is very difficult to arrive at any conclusion as to 
the general sentiment of the people of Virginia up to 
the time of Lincoln's election. Outwardly the peace 
element predominated. Few newspapers were advocat- 
ing radical measures and the resolutions adopted at 
the inevitable mass meetings were generally pacific in 
character. On the other hand, we know that active 
war preparations were being made in various parts of 
the state as early as the summer of 1860.^ These 
martial demonstrations are really not so significant as 
one might think at first glance, for the idle men in 
Virginia (and there were many such) needed but slight 
excuse to form themselves into military companies, don 
gay uniforms and parade the streets. Their feeling 

^National Intelligencer, Feb. 13, 1860, quoting Richmond 
Whig. Mr. Rives was such a devoted Union man at this time 
that it is hard to credit the fact that only a year later he was 
in Montgomery for the very purpose of hitching Virginia to 
the "crazy raft of secession." 

^ The editor of the Christian Banner wrote June 7, 1860. "The 
atmosphere, the very element in which we live seems to be preg- 
nant with the spirit of war. . . . The very devil seems to be 
turned loose among the people. Battalions are being formed 
all through the South and sublime and costly preparations for 
war are being made everywhere. . . . Even the little boys in our 
town . . . have caught the war spirit and formed themselves 
into military companies and perambulate the streets dressed 
out in uniforms, with their banners floating before the breeze, 
their mock drums beating, and their imitation guns on their 
shoulders. . . . The people seem to be taking it into their heads 
that there will be war, there must be war, and there shall be 
war." — Hunnicutt, "The Conspiracy Unveiled, or the Horrors 
of Secession," p. 22. 



94 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

against the North was one of resentment rather than 
hatred, and certainly not strong enough as yet to 
inspire them to deeds of arms. 

It must be borne in mind, too, that it is impossible 
to make any statement about Virginia that would be 
true of all sections. Not all eastern Virginia was a 
unit by any means. The cities and larger towns seemed 
to contain the only radical elements of any conse- 
quence; county newspapers were a unit, almost, in 
counseling moderation and it is a fair assumption that 
they reflected the sentiments of their readers. Across 
the Alleghany Mountains conditions were so entirely 
different that it is not easy to remember that trans- 
AUeghany Virginia was still an integral part of the 
state. No secession party of any consequence existed 
in any portion of the west.^ The recent immigrants 
from the North were, of course, pronounced in their 
Union sympathies, while the native western Virginians, 
not having much at stake, as they thought, at that 
time displayed an indifference to national questions 
that could scarcely be found anywhere else in the whole 
country. The greater part of the section was far re- 
moved from the scene of conflict and it is altogether 
likely that a vast majority of the people were as igno- 
rant of, as they were indifferent to, the great political 
events of the day. 

The presidential campaign of 1860 proved to be one 

^The Kanawha Valley Star was one of the very earliest ad- 
vocates of secession, but it cannot be shown that this paper had 
a very large following. 



PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 95 

of the most exciting that Virginia had ever experienced. 
In addition to the close contest between Bell and 
Breckenridge, and overshadowing it in importance, was 
the momentous question: What will be the outcome if 
Lincoln is elected? As the summer and fall of that 
year wore away, it became evident to all that the "Black 
Republican" candidate had the best chance of election 
and a certain hopelessness is observable in the Union 
ranks. It was felt that Virginia could no more prevent 
the dissolution of the Union after Mr. Lincoln's elec- 
tion than she could prevent that election,-^ and this 
was the prevailing sentiment even among the strongest 
Union men. 

The Secessionist Richmond Enquirer averred that 
nothing could prevent civil war with all its attendant 
horrors. Any one of the Southern states could involve 
the whole country in a desolating war and this would 
doubtless be the outcome. As for the position of Vir- 
ginia, that would be determined by the votes of a ma- 
jority of her people and no one could doubt, says this 
journal, what their decision would be when the honor 
of the state was in question, although there were many 
who preferred waiting for some overt act. "But, 
hitched as she is to the Southern states, she will be 
dragged into a common destiny with them no matter 
what may be the desire of the people." ^ This last 
phrase received much attention from a certain class 
of Virginians who objected to the allegation that their 

^The Richmond Whig, Sept. 20, 1860. 
^Enquirer, Oct. 2, 1860. 



96 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

state could be forced into doing anything against its 
will. As one paper declared: *' Virginia would never 
be hitched to the Southern Confederacy unless it was 
by her own free will and consent." ^ 

At a Rockingham County mass meeting resolutions 
were adopted to the effect that 

"the allegation that Virginia is so hitched to the South- 
em states that they can drag her into a common 
destiny with them no matter what may be the desire 
of her people is a foul calumny and aspersion on this 
noble commonwealth and a gross insult to her people; 
that we believe that nine tenths of the people of this 
state will be opposed to resisting the general govern- 
ment as long as it may be administered in conformity 
to the Constitution and the common benefit of all the 
states; that Virginia owes no duty to the Southern 
states or any other quarter of the world except to dis- 
charge those constitutional obligations resting on her 
as a member of the Union and which every civilized 
community owes to every other; and that she has the 
ability and the resolution to maintain her rights from 
whatever quarter they may be assailed." ^ 

^The Whig, Oct. 4, 1860. 

'^National Intelligencer, Oct. 10, 1860. Not a little of the 
bitterness against the states farther south arose from the agita- 
tion over the reopening of the slave trade which Virginia op- 
posed. The Lynchburg Virginian on Oct. 10, 1860, printed a long 
article showing what would be the effect if restrictions upon 
this "execrable commerce" were removed. A marked deprecia- 
tion in the price and value of slaves would undoubtedly follow 
and this would tell seriously on the fortunes of the state. "But 
let the two favorite measures of the Southern agitators be 
adopted, to wit a dissolution of the Union and the reopening of 
the slave trade and what then? Cannot anybody perceive that 
with the influx of cheap negroes from Africa to take the place 
of those that are usually carried from Virginia; with the de- 



PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 97 

The Enquirer insisted that it was only pride which 
kept them from admitting their dependence on the 
South. After the gulf states had gone out it would be 
impossible for Virginia to continue in the Northern 
Union, and in a border state confederacy slavery would 
have no protection whatsoever, being compelled to run 
the gauntlet of the Northern Abolitionists on the one 
hand and the discriminatory acts of the gulf states on 
the other. The result would be the financial ruin of 
Virginia and the beginning of a desultory civil war.^ 

Some of the more optimistic expressed the opinion 
that the election of Lincoln, if accomplished through 
the division of his opponents, would be a barren victory 
for the Republicans, since the Democrats at any time 
could unite and checkmate any move of the anti- 
slavery men in Congress.^ 

Henry A. Wise in a letter to the Democratic Club 
of Boston expressed the fear that Black Republicanism 
was to triumph in the coming election and outlined a 
course of action which he called "fighting in the Union." 
Virginia should retain her constitutional relations to 
the Federal Government, but the latter was to be 
embarrassed in every possible way. No Federal officers 
should be allowed to perform their duties, and the state 
was to throw itself in a defensive position awaiting 

mand cut off in that quarter for our surplus and redundant 
slave population our property would soon become worthless?" 

^ Enquirer, Oct. 12, 1860. 

"The Alexandria Sentinel first expressed this idea in an able 
article appearing Oct. 10, 1860. 



98 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

some hostile move on the part of the central authori- 
ties.^ 

A great many people thought that the election of 
Lincoln was a matter of little consequence, war being 
inevitable anyhow.^ Said Robert Scott: "I believe in 
no practicability of establishing upon the ruins of the 
Union an enduring Southern Confederacy. Between 
the border states and the gulf states there exist too 
many diversities of soil, climate, and interests." ^ But 
even in this unenviable position he saw no escape for 
Virginia as long as there were such important sectional 
matters at stake. Since disunion had been decided upon 
by the "fire-eaters" of the South, it was of no conse- 
quence whether Lincoln was elected or not; it would 
merely serve as a reasonable pretext. The plan was 
to get Governor Letcher to call a special session of the 
legislature and by a warlike message stir that body 
up to rebellion.* 

The eastern Virginians were warned that the western 
counties would not be dragged into secession ; that nine 
tenths of the people of western Virginia were in favor 
of trying the administration of Mr. Lincoln, even 
though they abhorred liis principles. The opportunity 
was seized to read the east a homily on their duty to 
the west. On the other side of the Blue Ridge Moun- 

^ Philadelphia Public Ledger, Dec. 17, 1860. See below. 

^This presentiment was probably more general than appears 
on the surface. Union men disliked to admit that their cause 
was hopeless. 

^ From a speech delivered at Alexandria, Oct. 10, 1860. 

* National Intelligencer, Oct. 20, 1860. 



PRELIMINAKIES OF THE CONVENTION 99 

tains were the majority of the white population of Vir- 
ginia ; these constituted the bone and sinew of the state, 
furnished the fighting men in time of war, were ardently 
devoted to the Union, and would not follow the state 
leaders in any war upon the Federal Government until 
that government had actually ceased to be the govern- 
ment of the whole United States. One of the western 
correspondents, with prophetic foresight, wrote: "It 
is evident from what I have seen and heard through 
western Virginia that if John Letcher and the Rich- 
mond Junto attempt to drag Virginia into secession — 
Virginia will be two states before it is finished." ^ 

The election of Lincoln came as a bitter blow to 
the peace-lovers of Virginia for while the event was 
expected, there still remained the hope that something 
might happen to bring about the defeat of the "Black 
Republican" candidate. Immediately upon receipt of 
the news, the commandant of the state armory left for 
Washington for the purpose of buying military stores 
and supplies of all kinds. ^ The fact that this was done 
so openly leads us to suspect that it was undertaken 
more as a warning than anything else. There is little 
reason to doubt that the great body of Virginians still 
maintained their conservative attitude. Secretary of 
War Floyd, while affirming his belief in the right of a 
state to sever its connection with the Federal Govern- 
ment and deploring the election of Lincoln as a na- 

* From a letter to the National Intelligencer signed "Vir- 
ginian," Oct. 20, 1860. 
» Philadelphia Public Ledger, Nov. 6, 1860. 



100 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

tional calamity, counseled Virginia to go very slowly. 
He believed that some readjustment of national affairs 
would have to be made, but rested his faith on the 
powerful influence of the business interests of the coun- 
try.^ Senator Hunter of Virginia openly endorsed 
these views, but doubted if war could be averted after 
the first drop of blood was shed.^ John S. Millson in 
the House of Representatives expressed the idea of a 
great many Virginians when he declared that it was 
not a question of Virginia's submitting to Lincoln but 
of the latter's submitting to Virginia.^ The press of 
the state was divided on the issue pretty much accord- 
ing to sections. Western Virginia, having compara- 
tively little to lose from an attack on slavery, was in- 
clined to belittle the importance of the event. The 
papers of the Valley interpreted it much more seri- 
ously, but so far from being willing to give up the 
Union they were almost unanimously of the opinion 
that some amicable agreement could yet be reached. 
The Whig journals fixed the responsibility for Lin- 
coln's election upon the "Breckenridgers under Yancey 
and the corruptionists under Buchanan." ^ In the east 
few newspapers advised radical action, although there 
was little hope that anything could be done to pacify 
the dissonant sections of the United States. In any 
case, Virginia should exhibit the wisdom, moderation, 

* Richmond Enquirer, Dec. 6, 1860. 
^National Intelligencer, Dec. 7, 1860. 

^Congressional Globe, Second Session 36th Congress, appendix, 
p. 77. 

* Richmond Whig, Dec. 1, 1860. 



PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 101 

and patriotism by which she had always been char- 
acterized, and should go very slowly in making any 
alliances.^ 

Only one important daily newspaper urged imme- 
diate and decisive action. What good is there, it asks, 
in attempting to patch up differences that all people 
should recognize by this time as irreconcilable? If 
the Virginia authorities wished to act in a manner be- 
coming to the officials of a great state they would at 
once dispatch commissioners to Maryland and the two 
states acting together should capture Washington, Old 
Point Comfort, Harper's Ferry, and the Gosport 
Navy Yard. "Disunion to all intents and purposes 
exists. Let each state provide quickly for its own 
safety." ^ 

As is always the case in times of great political ex- 
citement, the people came together in mass meetings 
and gave utterance to their sentiments through the 
medium of resolutions and memorials. All deplored 
the election of Lincoln as a terrible misfortune, but 
few of them held that this in itself constituted suffi- 
cient cause for secession. West of the Blue Ridge the 
feeling seemed to prevail that the safety of Virginia 
lay in an agreement of some kind with the border 
states : not necessarily a formal alliance, but some kind 
of understanding that they should all stand together 
to resist alike the usurpations of the Northern Union 

* Alexandria Gazette, Dec. 1; Richmond Examiner, Dec. 2, 
1860. 
'Richmond Enquirer, Dec. 8, 1860. 



102 riiK Disurrrio^ of vikcinia 

aiul \\\c iin}>ortiinit ios t>f tlio Si>uthorn Confodoriicv.^ 
Whilo tlio }HH>plo o( tho lavi^o slavoholclinjr counties in 
tho ^ allov vioAvod witli oront nlnrni tho oloction of n 
man >vl\o hail at ono tinio sworn to strike the institu- 
tion of slavery a hU)\v, their sentiments as expressed 
by resolutions in mass meetinix^ were far less radical 
than we shi>uUl expect considerinii^ what they had at 
stake. At the most they seldom went any further than 
to adyise the callini;- of a Southern states' convention 
for the purpose of considering; junv their rii^lits could 
be secureil in the I'nion. Occasionally we find a veiled 
threat such as *'in the event of a failure to obtain guar- 
antees . . . we are resolved to adopt in concert with 
the otlier states of the South or alone sucli measures 
as may seem most expedient to protect the rights and 
insure the safety of tlie people of \'irginia," - 

As the year 1S()0 passed and nothing was done to 
heal the ilitferences between the sections of the coun- 
try, there was a pronounced drift toward secession in 
Virginia. The feeling that war was inevitable pre- 
vailed and it became more apparent every day that 
Virginia could not take a neutral position when the 
struggle broke out."' The radical element grew with 
great rapidity and no ett'ort was spared to bring about 

' Resolutions to this otVcH't woro aiioptod in mass meetings 
held in Bath Comity, l.ovidoun County, Allvmarle County, 
Botetourt County, etc. 

' "Messagt^s and Ooemnents of Virginia." Doeument No. 14. 

' .\s early as Dee. 17, ISo'O, a dispatch from the Riehmond 
eorrespondent of the Wheeling Ivit-IUofncfr deelared Uiat the 
gtMieral sentiment wa.s that "dissolution eould not be avoided, 
and ^"i^ginia must go along with the Soutli." 



PKKMMINAKIKS fH' THK CON VKXIIOX 103 

a collision with tlir.- ^cncrnl frovcrnuuni. 'J'hf* p^ropJc 
of tiifr east Wfrc warned by tiie loyal newspapers of 
tfje *'precipitatiri;( DiHunionistH in tlif-ir rnirjst" and 
tjr^erj to r;}|frk In every way tfie [>ro^resH of tlie war 
party.' However, tfie Serr-sHir>niHt minority was strong 
wherfr the (Jnionist minority was wrrak. The former 
has<fj all thfir af>fifal.H od V'ir/^inian prirh- and Soutliern 
homo^f.'neity, wliile t|]c latt«:r v,<t<: foreerj to afjf>eal to 
a rnueli Wfrakf;r Hf^ntiment the love of t[ie T.'rjion. 

'I'fif' position of C/ovf;rnor Isf-h-.lxr was an unenviable 
one at tijjs time*. l'ossessin;( rnf>r|r:rate' views as to the 
course which Virginia should take, he was betwe-<;n two 
fires. Owing his election to his fellow-citizens of tj^je 
west, and characterized by the eastern slaveholders as 
one whose principles savored of '^IJlack Ilepublicanism," 
it is surprising to find fiim lined up witli the leaders 
of the Secession party and tK;corning a fairly pliable 
tool in tfjeir fjands. His views on states' rights and 
slavery had changed since the Constitutional Conven- 
tion of I80O ol ^ as had his opinion of the "f^astem 
.Junto." hi his message to the General Assembly in 
1860 we have the first intimation that tfie Governor's 
ideas fiave undergone a transfornjation. Yancey hjrn- 

' Thf, RifhrnonrJ Whiff, still ft. l/riion p'^p^rr, pfrrforrnf.d hf;roic 
fv:rv'u'.(: in its efforts to neutralize; the effect of the .Secessionist 
sj>€ef:Fies. 

* \A:\(\n:r h?if] sat. in this c-onvention as a representative from 
western Virginia and had made himself ohnoxiou.s to the eastern 
leaders. His Houbriquet, "Honest John," had been earned when 
he was in Congress. lie had refused if) accept the salary in- 
crease provided by Q^ngress until the arrt rejfuvej] the sanction 
of his constituents. — KaruivJia Valley Star, Jan. Ki, 1857, quot- 
ing from the Weekly Expositor. 



104 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

self could not wax more indignant over the wrongs of 
the South. The North must give additional guarantees 
if it expected to preserve the Union intact, and Vir- 
ginia would not hesitate to resume her sovereign power 
if her connection with the United States became in- 
tolerable. 

September 17, 1860, the official organ of the state 
government announced that a special session of the 
legislature would be called, the purpose of which was 
the consideration of the sale of the James River and 
Kanawha Canal Company to some French capitalists. 
"Nevertheless," the item continues, "it is possible that 
the legislature on assembling will find even more serious 
work to do." ^ No better illustration of the conserva- 
tism which prevailed in Virginia at that time could be 
given than this rather hesitating announcement of the 
coming special legislative session. Had the people of 
the state been demanding war, it would not have been 
necessary to make the attempt to deceive citizens as 
to the real purpose of the call. Undoubtedly the 
Secessionist leaders who were responsible for the sum- 
moning of the Assembly understood well the sentiment 
of the majority of the Virginians and did not wish to 
arouse the suspicions of the Union men. But the 
proclamation really deceived few and only served to 
awaken deeper suspicion. 

The oflScial notice was sent out by Governor Letcher 
November 15th and called the General Assembly to 
meet January 7, 1861. 
"^ Richmond Enquirer, Sept. 17, 1860. 



PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 105 

Accordingly at the appointed time the Virginia As- 
sembly came together in a session which was to last 
until after Virginia had taken herself out of the Union. 
The Governor's message was a peculiar document, lack- 
ing in nothing so much as consistency. Starting with 
the premise that all might yet be well if the "fires of 
patriotism" could be kindled anew, he advocated the 
division of the United States into four republics and 
declared that the Union was already dissolved. South 
Carolina and Mississippi came in for their share of 
the general castigation, the reason for which was their 
precipitancy in leaving the Union without further con- 
sulting the border states. While the Governor was of 
the opinion that the dictum of Lincoln to the eiFect 
that the United States could not exist half slave and 
half free marked him as a dangerous man, yet he would 
not leave the Northern Union and go into a confed- 
eracy with the cotton states until it should appear 
what they had to offer in the way of guarantees. After 
the subject of Virginia's grievances has been thor- 
oughly considered, the message goes into a discus- 
sion of what might be expected if a state convention 
should be called. The opinion is expressed that it was 
unnecessary to provide for such a convention, at that 
time anyhow, for the legislature could act in any prob- 
able contingency. Just why the Governor took this 
stand is difficult to determine. His love of the Union 
may still have been strong enough to induce him to 
hold back from any step which seemed likely to lead 
to disunion; or, on the other hand, he may have been 



106 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

advised that a convention called at that time and con- 
trolled by the Valley and Trans-Alleghany members 
would never take Virginia out of the Union; and the 
legislature was far more amenable to Secessionist ideas 
than any convention would be. 

From the Federal Government, runs the message, 
there should be demanded six guarantees before Vir- 
ginia would even consider remaining in the Union: 
First, the personal liberty laws must be repealed; sec- 
ond, the institution of slavery in the District of Co- 
lumbia must be protected; third, the territories of the 
United States should be thrown open to slavery ; fourth, 
there must be no interference in the transference of 
slaves from one slave state to another, and the right 
of transit through free states must be secured; fifth, 
rigid laws should be passed prohibiting the publication 
and circulation of literature intending to incite the 
slaves to insurrection; sixth, no officers known to be 
hostile to slavery should be appointed to positions in 
the slave states. Here we have summed up all the griev- 
ances which the South had ever complained of, and 
had Congress been willing to give all the additional 
guarantees demanded it is probable that there would 
have been no Civil War in 1861. A close scrutiny of 
the message reveals the fact that the ostensible reason 
for calling the legislature together — to consider the sale 
of the James River and Kanawha Canal bonds — was 
lost sight of in the discussion of more important issues.-^ 

The document under discussion was not the most 

^"Messages and Documents," No. 1. 



PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 107 

unskillful one that could have been penned. Its author 
succeeded admirably in taking the middle ground and 
so framed his recommendations that the legislature 
could scarcely run counter to them. The Governor 
advised neither a strong Unionist nor a strong Seces- 
sionist policy but believed that the state should throw 
her fortunes with the side that made the best offer. 
It is not surprising that the message met with little 
approbation in either camp. The seceded states were 
more convinced than ever that Virginia would never 
pool issues with them, while the Unionists were uncer- 
tain whether to consider Letcher their friend or their 
enemy. 

The legislature upon assembling lost no time in get- 
ting down to work. Only such matters as demanded 
instant attention were considered. The report of a 
committee appointed at the previous session to look 
into the question of state defenses was listened to with 
a good deal of interest, as were the reports of the state 
auditors showing the condition of the finances. Statis- 
tics of all kinds poured in, until it seemed that the As- 
sembly must have resolved upon a complete stock- 
taking.-*^ 

The first business of any importance to be trans- 
acted was the appointment of a Committee on Federal 
Relations. Out of this grew the Peace Conference 
which met in Washington February 4th and attracted 
so much attention. That none of the seceded states 

* Very few laws were enacted which did not have some bear- 
ing upon the war question. 



108 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

sent representatives and that the conference failed to 
accomplish anything was not the fault of Virginia.^ 

January 8th, one day after assembling, the legisla- 
ture went on record in favor of the right of a state 
to secede from the Union and denying that the Federal 
Government could lawfully make war against any state 
or attempt to force it back again into the Union. There 
was of course nothing new about this doctrine and 
almost every state had at one time or another in its 
history given expression to it; but coming as it did 
at this time it has a special significance. It paved 
the way for the adoption of more radical resolutions, 
such as the one agreed to on January 21st, whereby 
the legislature declared itself in favor of uniting its 
destinies with the other Southern states in the event of 
the failure of all efforts to reconcile the differences be- 
tween the sections." 

While providing for the Peace Conference in Wash- 
ington, the Assembly also appointed ex-President Tyler 
and Judge Robertson as Commissioners to the United 
States and to the Southern Confederacy respectively, 
with instructions to keep both governments from 
resorting to active hostilities. It was well understood 
that they would make every effort to find out what were 

* "Messages and Documents," No. 13. South Carolina in re- 
sponse to Virginia's invitation declared that she herself had 
made a similar attempt to save the Union more than a year ago 
and that Virginia had declined to join her. Now it was too 
late. Steps had already been taken to form a Southern Con- 
federacy and the states concerned were determined "to secure 
their permanent independence beyond the reach of any con- 
tingency." — "Messages and Documents," No. 32. 

2 Laws of Virginia, 1861, p. 337. 



PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 109 

the intentions of the two governments; whether the 
North contemplated taking up arms in its effort to 
bring back the seceded states, and whether the officials 
at Montgomery were making any active preparations 
for war. Mr. Tyler learned little, but received the 
assurance from President Buchanan that the Federal 
Government would do all in its power to avoid a col- 
lision with the South. ^ Judge Robertson was scarcely 
the man to be sent on the mission to the Confederate 
states; he was an avowed Secessionist and conducted 
his negotiations with anything but the impartiality 
which should characterize an envoy. His notes to 
the state executives were entirely partisan in character 
and undoubtedly gave the impression that Virginia had 
almost decided to join the seceded states. Naturally 
the legislature got little satisfaction from his report. 
Georgia and Alabama committed themselves to the ex- 
tent that they promised to abstain from hostilities for 
the present, but the other states would give no assur- 
ances of any kind. 

Nothing definite resulted from Virginia's efforts at 
peace, but the state lost no prestige, to say the least, 
because of their failure. From January until April 
the eyes of the whole country were turned upon Vir- 

*The peculiar sensitiveness of Virginia is shown in a com- 
munication sent by Mr. Tyler to President Buchanan, calling 
the attention of the latter to the fact that the guns of Fortress 
Monroe were turned toward Virginia, an action which many 
people were interpreting as a threat. "When Virginia is making 
every effort to redeem and save the Union it is seemingly un- 
gracious to have cannons leveled at her bosom." Buchanan 
promised to look into the matter and remove the cause of offense. 
— "Messages and Documents," No. 23, p. 15. 



110 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

ginia, in the hope that her wise men would yet devise 
some method of holding together the Federal Union. 

From the very first there was a feeling in the legis- 
lature that the calling of a state convention was un- 
avoidable. A resolution to this effect passed the House 
of Delegates by a large majority, but not before the 
Union men had fought bitterly to have the matter post- 
poned. The question was raised whether the legislature 
had the power to summon a convention without first 
submitting the proposition to the voters, as had been 
the unvarying rule in preceding conventions. It was 
the prevailing view, however, that affairs were too press- 
ing to go through the accustomed formality, so the 
precedent was waived. All were impressed with the 
gravity of the situation.-^ As one member said, "We 
are standing to-day in the midst of a revolution around 
the falling columns and broken arches of the mightiest 
temple ever reared to the genius of Liberty. The 
vandalism of fanaticism has polluted its altars; the 
Spirit of Liberty has taken its flight and Ichabod is 
written on its door-posts. The union of these states 

* Great excitement prevailed in Richmond while the convention 
bill was under discussion. Business was almost entirely sus- 
pended, while on every corner people gathered to listen to 
Secessionist speeches. "Apparently there are no Union men in 
the city," wrote one visitor to Richmond. 

A dispatch to the Wheeling Intelligencer, Jan. 14, 1861, gives 
some idea of the existing conditions: "The very air here is 
charged with the electric thunders of war. In the street, at 
the Capitol, in the bar-room, at the dinner table, nothing is 
heard but resistance to the general government and sympathy 
with the cause of South Carolina. In the legislature, the great 
aim even among the western members appears to be to hurry 
things and precipitate a crisis." 



PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 111 

is already dissolved. . . . Great events are on the win^ 
and Virginia is called upon to say what part or lot 
she will take in this matter. . . . Will she be longer 
bound to broken covenants and violated compacts with 
those of Punic — worse than Punic — Puritan faith; or 
will she . . . take her cause in her own hands relying 
upon God and her arms? I cannot sing paeans to a 
Union that is dead." ^ 

Not all the members of the legislature took such 
extreme ground, but the majority recognized that some- 
thing would have to be done; that Virginia could main- 
tain the status quo but little longer, and that in the 
meantime there was likely to arise a situation which 
would require immediate attention. So the bill calling 
for a state convention passed both Senate and House 
of Delegates by large majorities. February 4th was 
fixed as the day for the election of delegates, although 
the conservative members of the legislature protested 
that not enough time would be given for a canvass.^ 
One important point was won by the opposition, how- 
ever, when they succeeded in foiling an effort of the 
Secessionists to make the decisions of the convention 
final without reference to the people. Those opposed 
to "reference'* declared that there was great prob- 
ability that whatever the convention did would have 
to be done in a hurry, and if all its actions had to go 
through the process of a general state vote before 

^ Richmond Dispatch, Jan. 9, 1861. 

^ This was the principal point of attack upon the bill by the 
western papers but they also asserted that the consent of the 
people should first be obtained before any convention was called. 



112 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

becoming effective it would be impossible to provide 
against any emergency. Furthermore, they declared, 
the convention will come directly from the people and 
will reflect their wishes.^ 

By a vote of seventy-seven to sixty-two it was de- 
cided to refer the action of the convention to a vote 
of the people of the state. 

The bill as finally passed on January 14th fixed the 
number of delegates to the convention at one hundred 
and fifty-two, the electoral districts to be the same 
as those fixed for the House of Delegates. February 
13th was set as the day when the convention should 
assemble.^ It cannot justly be said that the bill in 
question was unfair in any particular. It allowed 
what was really sufficient time for canvass before the 
election; it put the final responsibility for whatever 
should be done upon the people themselves; and by 
the method of appointment of delegates placed the 
control of the convention in the hands of the western 
representatives.^ But the time had passed when the 
Valley and the Trans-Alleghany were bound together 
by the same ties of interest; in the conventions of 
1829-30 and 1850-51 all the delegates from the region 
west of the Blue Ridge were aiming at a common goal 
— the removal of the restrictions upon suffrage and 
a more equal distribution of representation. The con- 

^The Dispatch, Jan. 12th. 

^ Laws of Virginia, 1861-62, p. 24. 

^Seventy-nine of the one hundred and fifty-two delegates were 
from that portion of Virginia lying west of the Blue Ridge 
mountains. 



PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 113 

stitution of 1851, by providing for what was prac- 
tically manhood suffrage, and by rearranging the ap- 
portionment of Delegates and Senators in their favor, 
appeased the people of the Valley and left the Trans- 
Alleghany alone to fight its battles. In the final 
analysis slavery was the wedge that pried the two sec- 
tions apart. ^ 

The few weeks preceding the election of February 
4th were stirring ones throughout Virginia. The Seces- 
sionists spared no effort to have delegates chosen who 
were pledged to vote for an ordinance of secession, while 
the moderates endeavored to have the delegates go to 
the convention untrammeled by pledges of any kind. 
A great majority of the candidates refused to take a 
decided stand on the issues of the day, and this was 
almost universally the case in the Valley and in the 
central, southern, and eastern counties of what is now 
the state of West Virginia. In the northwestern coun- 
ties where the sentiment was overwhelmingly against 
secession, the candidate who endeavored to straddle 
had little show of being elected.^ Thus in Wheeling 
the successful candidates had pledged themselves to 
four things: first, that they would vote against an 
ordinance of secession until the last ; second, that they 
would use their influence in having the laws of the state 
so modified that slaves would be taxed like all other 

^ The slave population of the Valley in 1860 numbered ap- 
proximately 300,000, while in the Trans-AUeghany there were 
fewer than 30,000 slaves. 

^'A candidate of this type in Wheeling, and a very popular 
man, was rejected because he refused to go on record as being 
opposed to secession under any and all circumstances. 



114 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

property ; ^ third, that they would work for the adop- 
tion of the white basis of representation; fourth, that 
in case the convention adopted an ordinance of seces- 
sion they favored the division of the state.^ In only 
a few places, however, were the delegates elected on 
such an uncompromising basis as this. Even in Rich- 
mond, the hotbed of secession, out of the men chosen 
only one, Mr. Randolph, was an avowed disunionist. 
The other two took no decided stand, although it was 
well understood that they could not be classed as 
"submissionists." John Minor Botts went down to 
defeat because of his well-known Union proclivities, 
while William C. Rives, certainly one of the ablest men 
in the state, suffered the same fate for the same reason, 
even though he had left a loophole in his platform by 
declaring that "our rights must be maintained at all 
hazards and I trust for one I shall be prepared to 
meet every sacrifice they demand with as calm and col- 
lected a heart ... as the loudest patriot among us." ^ 
In practically all the counties the voters could 
choose from three classes of candidates, namely, avowed 
Secessionists, avowed Unionists, and those who would 
"preserve the Union if it could be done with honor." 
The last reflected the opinion of the great mass of 

^ Slaves under ten years of age were exempt from taxation 
in Virginia, while those over that age were taxed at a fixed 
valuation of $300. This was one of the sore points with the 
West, which held but few slaves. 

* Wheeling Intelligencer, Jan. 22, 1861. 

^ National Intelligencer, Jan. 28, 1861. Also the Christian 
Advocate warned the people against such men as Mr. Rives, 
urging them to be as careful of their selections "as if their 
eternal salvation depended upon their action." 



PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 115 

people west of the Blue Ridge and south of the Little 
Kanawha River. East of the Blue Ridge the prevail- 
ing sentiment was apparently in favor of secession, al- 
though this was not true of all the counties. North 
of the Little Kanawha in western Virginia, especially 
along the Ohio River, there was comparatively little 
trend toward secession at this time. For the native 
Virginians of this section not possessing slaves the 
institution of slavery held only an academic interest, 
while the large number of Northern settlers must neces- 
sarily have had a great influence in creating Union 
sentiment. 

February 5th the news was flashed around the coun- 
try that Virginia had gone for the Union. Dispatches 
like the following were to be found in nearly every im- 
portant newspaper : "Sufficient accounts from all parts 
of the state have been received to warrant me in saying 
that the Union ticket has swept the state by an im- 
mense majority. I doubt if there will be thirty Seces- 
sionists in the convention." ^ At first this was the com- 
mon feeling, even among those to whom the news was 
unwelcome. The Unionists were exuberant. The 
Christian Banner exults thus: "A thousand guns for 
the Old Dominion on the result of the late election. 
. . . Now if she can save the Federal Government and 
cause the Stars and Stripes to continue floating over 
our homes, she shall be entitled to 10,000 guns from 

every prominent town and city in the state." ^ An- 

*Washingi;on Star, Feb. 5, 1861. 

^Hunnicutt, "The Conspiracy Unveiled or the Horrors of 
Secession," p. 143. 



116 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

other Virginia paper rejoices that Virginia was not 
"to dance crazily out of the Union to the fiddling of 
South Carolina." ^ A strong Secessionist paper ex- 
plains the defeat of its candidates on three grounds: 
first, the fear of secession; second, the alarm aroused 
among the foreigners relative to their oath of alle- 
giance; and third, the revival of the remnant of the 
Douglas party. "As to the cry of secession . . . ," 
says this journal, "it was altogether unjust. Nobody 
was for secession per se^ ^ Editorials appeared in 
papers all over the country, felicitating Virginia upon 
her magnificent stand for the Union. It was the gen- 
eral opinion that she had definitely decided to have 
no dealings with the Southern Confederacy and this 
was considered equivalent to casting her lot with the 
North. ^ In the seceded states there was nothing but 
gloom over the result. A Charleston paper declares 
that Virginia would never secede now, and even though 
the convention should pass an ordinance of secession 
the people would vote it down. The pride felt by the 
Union press of the state is well illustrated by the fol- 
lowing editorial: 

"Nothing could be more gratifying to the pride of 
a true Virginian than the respect which is felt and 
manifest for the glorious old state all over the country. 
Her praises come wafted to us upon every breeze. In 
all places patriotic men rise up to call her blessed. 

^The Norfolk Herald, Feb. 6, 1861. 
2 The Richmond Dispatch, Feb. 6, 1861. 

' This opinion was expressed by the Philadelphia Press in an 
editorial appearing Feb. 6th. 



PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 117 

Everywhere men say, 'Virginia has spoken and her 
voice is for the Union and peace. She has inspired 
new hopes. She has given strength to the weak, and 
stability to those who were almost ready to fall away. 
She has arrested the mad course of secession and, if 
truly understood, has shown the North that she will 
demand her rights in the Union and will never abandon 
them.' The noble stand she has taken will make her 
friends all over the North and increase tenfold her 
ability to secure concessions that will preserve the 
equality of states." ^ 

Such was the character of the articles which ap- 
peared in the Union papers of Virginia and little won- 
der is it that the North was entirely deceived as to 
the real meaning of the election. A "Union man" was 
one thing in Virginia and another thing in New Eng- 
land. The Northern conception of a Union man found 
little place in the South where his prototype, the "Black 
Republican Submissionist," was scarcely tolerated. The 
Virginia Unionist opposed secession save as a last re- 
sort. He would play the role of neutral as long as 
possible, and when this position became untenable he 
believed that the state should either join the states 
which were already out of the Union or form a border- 
state confederacy,^ 

After the first flush of enthusiasm over the February 
election had died away, a reaction set in and many 
people began to ask whether they had not misinter- 
preted the meaning of the election. A Union paper of 

^The Virginian, Feb. 6, 1861. 

'This was the favorite plan of Governor Letcher, who was 
described as the happiest man in the state over the election. 



118 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

Richmond issued a warning to the Northerners not to 
deceive themselves into thinking that Virginia would 
allow matters to remain in statu quo; that she was 
going to submit to the new dynasty if it attempted to 
carry out the Chicago program. On the contrary, she 
had determined to end her connection with the North 
unless satisfactory and inviolable assurances were given 
that every constitutional right would be maintained.-^ 
A dispatch was printed in a Philadelphia paper 
cautioning the North not to misunderstand the signifi- 
cance of the word Union. ^ The real meaning is thus 
explained by a Secessionist paper: 

"The term Union by which the delegates-elect are 
designated is calculated to convey a very erroneous 
impression of the character of the convention. More 
than two thirds of the convention are resistants, who 
are restrained from advocating immediate resistance 
by a desire to unite the whole people of Virginia. Some 
of these gentlemen are designated as Union, because 
elected over gentlemen who desire immediate secession 
without any effort at adjustment. The submissionists 
have met with a defeat signal and overwhelming in Vir- 
ginia. Resistance has triumphed in Virginia and un- 
less a speedy adjustment is effected and the seceded 
states induced to return, Virginia will strike an effec- 
tive blow before the 4th of March." ^ 

The opinion was offered that there was no real dif- 
ference between the Unionists and the Secessionists; 

^ The Whig, Feb. 11, 1861. 

2 The Public Ledger, Feb. 6, 1861. 

' Richmond Enquirer, Feb. 6, 1861. 



PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 119 

both agreed that guarantees must be given to the South 
and the only disagreement was the time which should 
elapse before decided action was taken. ^ In the light 
of later events we must pronounce this explanation to 
be substantially correct, so far at least as the eastern 
delegates were concerned. 

In the national House of Representatives the Vir- 
ginia delegation endeavored to correct the false im- 
pression that was spread abroad concerning the per- 
sonnel of the coming convention. Daniel Sickles of 
New York had declared that "Virginia has spoken and 
said to this demon of anarchy, 'thus far shalt thou go 
and no farther.' *' Mr. De Jamette took it upon 
himself to undeceive those who held this view. Vir- 
ginia's liberty and sovereignty must be preserved, he 
said, "or every sword will leap from its scabbard and 
flash defiance to a world in arms. There are no 'sub- 
missionists' there; do not, I implore you, suppose that 
Virginia will submit to oppression. . . . She has called 
her young men and her old men together around her 
council board. They have left their swords at home 
because their presence sometimes engenders strife. They 
want peace not war ; but if you do not acknowledge the 
sovereignty of Virginia and the equality of her people 
you will find them on the war path." ^ Another Vir- 
ginia Representative, Mr. Leake, asserted that his 
state had gone for secession one hundred and twenty 
to thirty unless guarantees were given her before March 

* Richmond Dispatch, Feb. 7, 1861. 
Ubid., Feb. 15, 1861. 



120 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

4th. She had solemnly determined that she would never 
submit to the Union as it was now constituted.^ 
William C. Rives, whose devotion to the Union cause 
cannot be questioned, was forced to acknowledge that 
this agreed with his own diagnosis of the situation and 
added that the election of so many delegates with con- 
servative views merely postponed for a time what was 
inevitable — secession.^ Mr. Harris on the floor of the 
House, in a speech full of protestation of love for the 
Union, closed with these significant words: "My own 
state, Virginia, has elected her delegates to deliberate 
upon her welfare and her destiny ; and while her action 
may be against my judgment, yet when it is taken her 
lot becomes my lot; her fate my fate; her destiny my 
destiny. Her will not mine be done.'^ ^ 

^Richmond Dispatch, Feb. 15, 1861. 

2 Pittsburgh Chronicle, Feb. 7, 1861. 

^ CongressioTial Globe; 36th Congress, 2nd Session; Appendix, 
p. 76 et seq. 

January 24th the Virginia Representatives in Congress issued 
the following "Address to the People of Virginia": "At the 
begii7ning of this session, now more than half over, committees 
were appointed in both Houses of Congress to consider the 
state of the Union. Neither committee has been able to agree 
upon any mode of settlement of the pending issues between the 
North and the South. The Republican members in both com- 
mittees rejected propositions acknowledging the right of prop- 
erty in slaves or recommending the division of the territories 
between the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding states by a 
geographical line. In the Senate the propositions commonly 
known as Mr. Crittenden's were voted against by every Re- 
publican Senator. A resolution giving a pledge to sustain the 
President in the use of force against seceded states was adopted 
in the House by a large majority and in the Senate every 
Republican voted to substitute for Mr. Crittenden's proposi- 
tions resolutions offered by Mr. Clarke of New Hampshire de- 
claring that no new concessions, guarantees, or amendments to 
the Constitution were necessary; that the demands of the 



PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 121 

In spite of the attempts of those who were familiar 
with the situation to correct the false impressions re- 
garding the real meaning of the February election the 
general public would not be undeceived, preferring to 
believe what they wished to believe. This has been 
unfortunate for Virginia. The almost universal opin- 
ion was, and is, that the majority of delegates went to 
Richmond strong Union men and, through the force of 
exterior pressure "turned traitor'^ and voted Virginia 
out of the Union against the wishes of the majority 
of her people. No opinion could be more erroneous 
than this, for, leaving out of consideration the north- 
western delegates, there was scarcely a man who came 
to the convention resolved to remain in the Union even 
at the hazard of being compelled to fight the South. 
The thought of leaving a Union in which Virginia had 
played such a conspicuous and glorious part was al- 

South were unreasonable and the remedy for the present danger 
was simply to enforce the law ... in other words, coercion and 
war. In this state of facts our duty is to warn you that it is 
in vain for you to hope for any measures of conciliation or 
adjustment from Congress which you could accept. We are 
satisfied that the Republican party designs by civil war alone 
to coerce the Southern states under the pretext of enforcing 
the laws, unless it shall become speedily apparent that the 
seceding states are so numerous, determined and united as to 
make such attempt hopeless. . . . We have thus placed before 
you the facts and conclusions which have become manifest to 
us from this point of observation where you have placed us. 
There is nothing to be hoped from Congress; the remedy is 
with you alone when you assemble in sovereign Convention. We 
conclude by expressing our solemn conviction that prompt and 
decided action by the people of Virginia in Convention will 
afford the surest means, under the providence of God, of avert- 
ing an impending civil war and preserving the hope of recon- 
structing the Union already dissolved." — Richmond Dispatch, 
Jan. 25, 1861. 



122 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

most unbearable, but the idea of turning their arms 
against their sister states of the South was altogether 
unthinkable. Any reference to such men as traitors 
displays a bias that was common a half century ago 
and is not altogether unknown to-day. 

An analysis of the one hundred and fifty-two dele- 
gates chosen reveals the fact that eighty of them had 
voted for Bell, thirty-five for Douglas, and thirty-two 
for Breckenridge in the last presidential election.^ 
Where the remaining five delegates stood is not known. 
However, in the convention all party alignments were 
shattered. In the Union ranks were to be found Breck- 
enridge men just as it is true that Bell and Douglas 
men voted consistently for secession. Halifax, the 
largest slaveholding county in the state, which had 
given a decided majority for Breckenridge the pre- 
ceding November, elected a conservative Union man to 
the convention.^ Hancock County, with only two 
slaves, had returned a Union delegate by a majority of 
only eleven votes. ^ While these may have been excep- 
tional cases, it yet remains true that in choosing their 
representatives to Richmond the people had had more 
regard to personality than to platform, probably be- 
cause their own ideas at that time were undecided and 
they preferred leaving the definite settlement of the 
issues to the judgment of their representatives. The 
greater number of delegates came to the convention 

^Granville Hall, "The Rending of Virginia," p. U2. 
» Philadelphia Public Ledger, Feb. 6, 1861. 
^Wheeling Intelligencer, Feb. 6, 1861. 



PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 123 

free to vote as their judgment dictated. A popular 
estimate seemed to be that one fourth favored imme- 
diate secession ; one fourth would not vote for secession 
under any conditions ; and the remainder took the mid- 
dle ground, preferring to wait for further developments 
before taking a decided stand. However, the estimates 
varied according to the sympathies of those who made 
them, and it may truly be affirmed that when the con- 
vention first assembled there was no one who could do 
more than approximate how the delegates would be 
lined up. It is altogether likely that for the first few 
weeks the delegates themselves would not have been able 
to tell how they were going to vote when the time came 
to make a final decision. 



CHAPTER IX 

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 

When the Virginia Convention assembled in Rich- 
mond on February 13, 1861, the affairs of the nation 
were at a crisis. Seven states had formally withdrawn 
from the Union, while the Buchanan administration 
looked idly on. The President had proved his inability 
or his indisposition to meet the situation, and had re- 
solved to turn over the burden to the incoming admin- 
istration. The seceded states were importuning Vir- 
ginia to act, urging that she held the fate of the new 
republic in the hollow of her hands. Virginia orators 
had been going through the South, giving that section 
the impression that their state was seething with the 
fire of rebellion and needed but to hear the roar of 
cannon and smell the smoke of gunpowder to trans- 
form her into an active belligerent. Roger A. Pryor 
and his kind did not scruple to incite the seceded states 
to some hostile action against the Federal Government, 
promising that its effect would be sufficient to detach 
Virginia from the North. ^ Both North and South, 

*Mrs. Roger A. Pryor, "Reminiscences of Peace and War," 
p. 120. 

124 



THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 125 

while watching the progress of the Virginia Convention, 
labored under a misapprehension regarding the true 
condition of affairs. Virginia at this time inclined 
neither toward the North nor the South. 

An added interest was given to the affairs in Vir- 
ginia from the fact that the border states would be 
influenced in no small degree by what she did. It was 
believed that Virginia's decision would carry sufficient 
weight to hold the wavering states in the Union if Vir- 
ginia should decide upon this course of action. Union 
sentiment in Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee,^ 
Kentucky, and Missouri was fully as strong as it was 
in Virginia, but needed to be bolstered up. Thus if 
Virginia refused to join the Southern Confederacy a 
powerful impetus would be given the Union cause; one 
that might be sufficient to prevent civil war and restore 
the Union intact. 

Richmond was not precisely the best place that could 
have been selected for holding a convention of this kind. 
The presence of a strong and vociferous Secessionist 
party created a difficult situation for those of the dele- 
gates who were opposed to disunion, especially for the 
uncompromising Unionists. 

Of the one hundred and fifty-two delegates elected 
to this convention only a few were men with national 
reputations. Ex-President Tyler was there part of 
the time and lifted up his voice for secession. Henry 

^The counties of East Tennessee gave a majority of 18,300 
for remaining in the Union. It was alleged that the votes of 
the soldiers in the camps carried the state over to the Southern 
Confederacy. — "Parson Brownlow's Book," p. 223. 



126 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

A. Wise, ex-Governor of the state/ Lewis E. Harvie, 
Robert L. Montague, and George Randolph were dis- 
tinguished leaders of the same side. Upholding the 
Union cause were George W. Summers, John S. Carlile, 
Sherrard Clemens, and Waitman T. Willey from the 
Trans- Alleghany ; and Jubal A. Early, Alexander H. 
H. Stuart, John Janney, John B. Baldwin, William 
Ballard Preston, and Samuel McD. Moore from the 
Valley. Nearly all the men above mentioned were 
agreed on two things, namely, the right of a state to 
secede from the Union, and the righteousness of the 
institution of slavery.^ The difference between the 
factions was not one of articles of faith, but of what 
constituted expediency. It was not. Have we the right 
to secede .f' but. Is it to our best interests to secede.'^ 

The first skirmish in the convention took place in 
the election of a President. Mr. Janney, the Union 
candidate, defeated Mr. Southall, an avowed Seces- 
sionist, by a vote of seventy to fifty-four. Too much 
significance was attached to this result, however. It 
was taken by Union sympathizers as a confirmation of 
their belief that they controlled the convention; but a 

^ Governor Wise had been very unpopular in certain sections 
of the state, owing to his earlier Union policy and his scathing 
denunciations of the Democratic party. In a speech at Norfolk 
Sept. 27, 1860, he declared that press and politicians were cry- 
ing, "Crucify him!" "Thank God, fellow citizens, I am at least 
alive to tell the tale." — National Intelligencer, Oct. 1, 1860. 

^Mr. Carlile and Mr. Willey later changed their minds as to 
states' rights but not until they were engaged in the process 
of making a new state out of western Virginia when to have 
admitted the right of a state to secede would have rendered 
their own position untenable. 



THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 127 

closer scrutiny will show that Mr. Southall's fifty-four 
votes represented a distinct party, while the seventy 
votes Mr. Janney received were given by men who had 
but one thing in common, namely, the prevention of 
hasty action. 

President Janney's address was rather colorless but 
perhaps all the better suited to the occasion. He 
reviewed briefly the reasons which caused the General 
Assembly to call the convention together; disclaimed 
any idea of advising them upon the course of proceed- 
ings they should follow, but warned them that a tre- 
mendous responsibility was resting upon them — a re- 
sponsibility that could not be shifted. His closing 
words were disquieting to both radical factions: 

"Gentlemen, there is a flag which for nearly a cen- 
tury has been borne in triumph through the battle and 
the breeze and which now floats over this Capitol, on 
which there is a star representing this ancient common- 
wealth; and my earnest prayer ... is that it may 
remain there forever, provided always that its luster 
is untarnished. . . .^ Is it too much to hope that we 
and others who are engaged in the work of peace and 
conciliation may so solve the problems which now per- 
plex us as to win back our sisters of the South who, for 
what they deem sufficient cause, have wandered from 
their orbits .^^ May we not expect that our old sister 
state Massachusetts will retrace her steps? . . . Will 
she not when she remembers who it was who first drew 
his sword from his scabbard on her soil at Cambridge 
and never finally returned it until her liberty and in- 

*The correspondent of the Wheeling Intelligencer reports 
that the only applause Mr. Janney received was at this point. 



128 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

dependence were achieved . . . repeal her obnoxious 
laws, which many of her wisest citizens regard a stain 
upon her legislative record? Gentlemen, this is no 
party convention. It is our duty on an occasion like 
this to elevate ourselves into an atmosphere in which 
party passion and prejudice cannot exist; to conduct 
all our deliberations with calmness and wisdom and to 
maintain with inflexible firmness whatever position we 
may find it necessary to assume." ^ 

February 16th a Committee on Federal Relations 
was appointed consisting of twenty-one members. Ten 
of these were known to be Secessionists, while the re- 
maining eleven held every variety of opinion. Only 
four were from the Trans-AUeghany and none of these 
held very decided Union views. 

A flood of resolutions began to pour in, representing 
all shades of belief. One offered by Mr. Morton 
may be given as showing the position taken by the 
moderates; 

"Resolved, That the people of Virginia ... do 
solemnly declare that she will not submit to the coercion 
of the seceded states, upon the pretext of the enforce- 
ment of the laws of the United States or upon any 
pretext whatever. That she solemnly protests against 
the use of the standing army and navy of the United 
States by the general government, and the concentra- 
tion of troops at the Federal metropolis and at various 

* Journal of the Convention, pp. 9-10. 

The Richmond papers attacked Janney's speech for its non- 
committal tone, while all confessed their inability to determine 
just what was meant by the last sentence. The Union men 
openly expressed the belief that they had been deceived in their 



THE VIRGINIA CONTENTION OF 1861 129 

forts, arsenals, etc., to coerce any state or states now 
out of the Union. That this commonwealth desires 
ardently to restore the Federal Union and to preserve 
it upon terms of safety and honor to all its members ; 
but if the efforts now being made for that purpose ■^ 
prove unavailing she will not hesitate to unite herself 
with her sister states of the South." ^ 

"Coercion" was the bugaboo of every true Virginian. 
Firm in his doctrine of states' rights, he denied that 
the Federal authorities could employ force to carry 
out the Federal laws. High-spirited to the point of 
touchiness, and keyed up by the excitement of the hour, 
he looked for offense where none was offered. At any 
time while the convention was in session the advent of a 
Union army upon the soil of Virginia would have set 
the state ablaze and thrown it into the arms of the 
Southern Confederacy within twenty-four hours. 

On the 16th the first real passage of arms occurred 
when Henry A. Wise and Samuel McD. Moore engaged 
in a verbal battle. The latter, in a discussion of the 
general policy which the state should pursue, declared 
with much emphasis that he was opposed both to run- 
ning away from the Yankees and to being dragged 
into the personally conducted Confederacy of South 
Carolina. The dignity of Virginia demanded that she 
should pursue her own way regardless of outside pres- 
sure. Mr. Wise retorted that there would be no "drag- 
ging," and when the time came for Virginia to secede 

* Referring to the Peace Conference, then holding its sessions 
in Washington. 

* Journal, p. 45. 



130 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

she would take that step regardless of North and South. 
Mr. Carlile interjected the remark that the only talk 
of coercion he had heard of came from a member of the 
Alabama Convention who had said that if the people 
did not vote to secede they should be forced into it. 
He offered a resolution that since the decision in the 
case of Chisholm vs. Georgia and the adoption of the 
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitu- 
tion, they were at a loss to understand how the impres- 
sion was obtained that the Federal Government pos- 
sessed the power to coerce a state.-^ 

Monday, February 18th, the Convention, in accord- 
ance with a request of the Governor's, listened to ad- 
dresses by special commissioners from Georgia, Missis- 
sippi, and South Carolina. This was the first of a 
series of attempts to fire the hearts of the delegates 
and constituted a mode of attack which the Unionists 
were unable to meet. It may easily be calculated how 
much effect the "Yancey" orations delivered by the 
Southern Commissioners had upon the wavering dele- 
gates. Said Mr. Preston of South Carolina : 

"Scarcely had the decree of our subjection been car- 
ried to their ears on the Northern breeze when, as if 
from the very caverns of the earth, was heard the voice 
of the people of South Carolina shouting back, 'Re- 
sistance to the death !' The legislature caught up that 
spirit and with one voice only ordained, 'Resistance to 
the death !' The people of the state in sovereign coun- 
sel, as you are now, with one voice . . . ordained 'Re- 
sistance to the death!' And now there is not in the 
* Richmond Dispatch, Feb. 18, 1861. 



THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 131 

borders of that little state a man found from sixteen 
to sixty who is not armed and ready for 'Resistance 
to the death/ We are very small ; we are very weak ; 
but if now or in after time that fiery storm shall fall 
and consume us; if the pilgrim of liberty from the 
land shall search beneath the ruins of Charleston he 
shall find there the sentinel standing at the sea-gate." ^ 

Mr, Anderson of Mississippi devoted his time to an 
exposition of the needs of the South and the benefits 
which would accrue to the new Confederacy if Virginia 
should join issue with them. She was still looked up 
to as the leader of the South and no one doubted what 
her choice would be when the crisis came. "Her sons 
will bear the banner of the South aloft and their blood 
will enrich every field in defence of her honor and sacred 
rights. (Wild applause.) The destiny of the South 
Virginia now holds in her hands. Let Virginia take her 
stand by her Southern sisters and the Revolution will 
be a peaceful one." 

The Georgia Commissioner was more defiant and 
decidedly more independent. He asserted that while 
it was true that the Southern Confederacy needed the 
help of the Old Dominion and was confidently counting 
on her help, it was also true that Virginia would need 
the aid of the other Southern states before a great 
while. But even if Virginia should decline to leave the 
Northern Union the cause of the South was by no 
means hopeless.^ 

* Richmond Dispatch, Feb. 19, 1861. 
*Ibid, 



132 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

That the effect of these speeches was great cannot 
be disputed. Virginia pride was flattered at the oppor- 
tunity thus off*ered of regaining lost prestige. Appeals 
to Southern homogeneity have seldom been in vain and 
certainly in this case the martial ardor of the Vir- 
ginians was kindled. The Union men in the convention 
complained, very justly it would seem, that they were 
placed at a great disadvantage. Already compelled to 
brave the displeasure of a hostile gallery,^ they were 
forced to remain quiet while studied efforts were being 
made to prevent the convention from considering the 
questions before it with calmness and deliberation.^ 

There was a great deal of discussion of the probable 
action of the other border states and many schemes 
were submitted having for their object the formation 
of a border-state confederacy. The Trans-Alleghany 
delegates, at least those from the northwestern coun- 
ties,^ put themselves in opposition to any plan of sepa- 
ration from the Union, and the ardent Secessionists 

*Very early in the convention it became evident that the 
Union men were in a hostile country. The galleries were filled 
every day with ardent Secessionists, who never failed to vent 
their displeasure on anyone who spoke in opposition to seces- 
sion. On the third day the spectators became so enthusiastic 
in their approval of the speeches advocating immediate seces- 
sion and so pronounced in their hostility to the men who 
spoke against it that Mr. Carlile asked to have the galleries 
cleared. Even though his motion did not include the ladies' 
gallery, there arose such a storm of protest that he was forced 
to withdraw his motion. — The Dispatch, Feb. 18, 1861. 

"A resolution prevailed to print and distribute 10,000 copies 
of the addresses of the Southern Commissioners. 

'L. S. Hall of Wetzel County was the only delegate from 
the extreme northwest who favored secession. Very early in 
the session he introduced a series of resolutions affirming the 
right of Virginia to secede, and declaring that, while the elec- 



THE VIEGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 133 

were not satisfied with anything less than a union with 
the Confederacy, but the real Conservatives, despairing 
of obtaining any redress from the North, often turned 
to their neighbors who, like themselves, were neither 
altogether of the North nor altogether of the South, 
in the hope that some united action might be found 
feasible. On February 20th the Committee on Federal 
Relations was asked to consider the advisability of call- 
ing a border-state convention, but action was deferred 
for a time. 

It was now suggested that the convention should 
interrogate the Virginia Peace Commissioners at Wash- 
ington as to the progress of their deliberations and 
request from them an opinion as to the possibility of 
their arriving at some definite agreement. The Union 
men saw at once what the effect of this would be. All 
knew that the Peace Conference v^^as a failure. When 
this fact was reported to the convention, the Seces- 
sionists would at once seize the opportunity to point 
out the futility of any further negotiations with the 
North ; even though it did not result in the passage of 
an ordinance of secession at once, their hands would 
be strengthened after it became apparent that no com- 
promise could be reached. The motion failed. 

Secession gained headway on the 23rd when a resolu- 
tion was adopted whereby a committee was to be ap- 
pointed to discover whether any movement of arms and 

tion of Lincoln was not in itself sufficient cause for secession, 
yet the state would consider itself justified in leaving the Fed- 
eral Union unless guarantees were given. 



134! THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

men had been made by the North indicating that an 
attack was contemplated. The resolution itself was 
comparatively unimportant; its significance lies in the 
fact that it had been offered before on the 20th and 
rejected by a vote of seventy-eight to sixty-one. 

Mr. Moore of Rockbridge County, ever careless of 
the disapproval of the galleries, now made a sensational 
attack on South Carolina, condemning that state for 
its precipitancy in leaving the Union and asserting that 
it had been responsible for the election of Lincoln. He 
introduced a series of resolutions to the effect that Vir- 
ginia would never join any confederacy where the slave 
trade was not prohibited and which did not provide for 
the support of the general government by some other 
means than direct taxation.^ Mr. Goode replied to 
Mr. Moore and so eloquently did he defend the course 
of South Carolina and uphold the Southern cause that 

^Mr. Moore was already a marked man in the convention. A 
few days previously he had given offense to the Secessionists 
by frankly avowing his intention to oppose at all times any 
plan designed to take Virginia out of the Union. In the 
evening a mass meeting of the citizens was called and a descent 
was made upon the American Hotel where Mr. Moore was 
staying. The crowd, fortunately, resorted only to groans and 
hisses. — The Dispatch, Feb. 20th. 

The second time he appeared on the floor of the convention 
as an opponent of disunion the spectators would not allow him 
to proceed and the galleries had to be cleared. The Richmond 
Dispatch, commenting on this, declared that the action was 
unnecessary; "that the people who frequented the convention 
hall were in marked contrast to the disorderly mob that packed 
the Northern capitols." 

Mr. Burdette of Taylor County evidently did not agree with 
this, for he offered a resolution that the convention adjourn 
to Staunton or some other city where their deliberations would 
not be interrupted by packed galleries. His proposition was 
rejected contemptuously. 



THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 135 

the galleries became uncontrollable and had to be 
cleared. He declared that there was only one question 
for the convention to consider and that was whether 
they were to go with the North or with the South. No 
middle way was now open to them, since it had become 
evident to all that the Federal authorities were making 
preparations to force the seceded states back into the 
Union. Unless Virginia at once dissolved her connec- 
tion with the North, she would be put in the position of 
supporting the coercive policy of that section.^ Mr. 
Goggin of Bedford County argued that Virginia had 
everything to gain by playing a waiting game. She 
could not be forced into raising troops for the Northern 
army and thus a continuance of the present relations 
for a time at least would be wiser than to rush into an 
agreement with the Confederacy, especially when it had 
not yet proved its stability. Mr. Sheffey, representing 
the southwestern section of the state, brought forward 
the view that the personal liberty laws of the North 
and the acts of secession of the South were equally un- 
constitutional. "But," said he, "when a state has once 
seceded there is no way by which it may be brought 
back again into the Union against its wishes." ^ 

On March 1st two new resolutions were introduced 
and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations. 
One provided that the people of the state should be 
given the opportunity of choosing between the North 
and the South; while the other was designed to recog- 

*The Dispatch, Feb. 25, 1861. 
*Ibid. 



136 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

nize, officially, the Southern Confederacy. If the first 
had been adopted and the plan carried out there is little 
doubt what the result would have been. Virginia would 
never have decided for the North as against the South 
at any time, but this was especially true now when 
Southern spirit was running so high. 

In support of secession Mr. Morton of Orange 
County declared that Virginia could not be safe with a 
"Black Republican" President. All the Federal offices 
of the South would be filled with men who were hostile 
to Southern institutions and their every action would 
be inimical to the interests of the South. Secession was 
the only remedy. Thus far, he declared, Virginia's 
procedure had been one of timidity and vacillation, in 
humiliating contrast with the decisive firmness of South 
Carolina. The speaker put the responsibility for the 
present crisis upon William H. Seward and said that 
he (Morton) had told Mr. Seward as much, threaten- 
ing at the same time to take it out of him personally.^ 

That the personal liberty laws were state, not na- 
tional, laws was the point argued by Mr. Baylor of 
Augusta County. The Federal Government should not 
be blamed for the action of the states. The very cen- 
tral idea of the Secessionists was that the states could 
not be forced into doing anything they did not wish to 
do by the Federal authorities. In the case just cited 
they were helpless. Secession, said Mr. Baylor, is not 

^The Dispatch, March 2, 1861. The hostility of Virginians 
toward Governor Seward was equaled in intensity only by their 
dislike of Lincoln. See speeches of Virginia representatives in 
37th Congress, 2nd session. 



THE VIRGINIA CONTENTION OF 1861 137 

constitutional and can be resorted to only as an act of 
revolution.^ 

On March 2nd Mr. Turner of Jackson County threw 
a bomb into the Secessionist camp by asking for the 
appointment of a committee to consider the matter of 
so amending the constitution of the state as to provide 
for the taxation of slaves on the same basis as other 
property. This was the trump card of the western 
opponents of secession. By resurrecting old sectional 
disputes, they hoped to divert the attention of the con- 
vention away from the question which they had been 
called to consider, or at any rate to make it clear that 
they would never consent to a union with the Southern 
Confederacy while the grievances of the west remained 
unredressed. A division of the state was hinted at, in 
case an ordinance of secession was passed against the 
wishes of the western delegates.^ While the proposition 

* The Dispatch, March 2, 1861. 

2 The New York Tribune taunted the Secessionist leaders in 
the convention with their inability to unite the various factions, 
particularly the Union party of the West, and asked what they 
would do if the West applied the doctrine of secession to her 
own case and tried to form a new state. The Richmond Dis- 
patch, in reply, passed over the assumption that counties and 
districts bore the same relation to the state that the state did 
to the Federal Union, and declared that while it was convinced 
that the western counties, with a few exceptions, were loyal 
to the state, yet if the reverse should prove to be the case so 
devoted was Virginia to the doctrine of individual rights that 
no opposition would be offered to any attempt at the division 
of the state. "If western Virginia wanted to secede from 
Virginia, eastern Virginia would neither seek nor desire to 
coerce her to remain; nor do we believe that if eastern Vir- 
ginia should wish a division western Virginia would employ 
coercion toward the East. When the consent of the governed 
is withdrawn from this government, it claims and will exercise 
no other power." 



138 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

was quickly rejected, it was destined to cause the 
Secessionists many uneasy moments. 

March 3rd was taken up with the discussion of the 
work of the Peace Conference. None of the speakers 
expressed any hope that an agreement would be reached, 
but all congratulated Virginia upon her efforts to bring 
about a peaceful settlement. It seemed to be the gen 
eral opinion that the Northern Abolitionists, although 
a small minority, had been powerful enough to check- 
mate any move which had for its aim the conciliation of 
the South. If the United States was cut in twain they 
could thank themselves for it. In any event, Virginia 
could now proceed to consider her own affairs with a 
clear conscience.-^ 

The Inauguration Day session was a stormy one. 
The thought that their country was installing into of- 
fice the man whom they considered their bitterest enemy 
provoked the Secessionists into uttering the most radi- 
cal statements that had yet been heard on the floor of 
the convention. The trouble began when Mr. Chamb- 
less introduced a series of resolutions the object of 
which was to provide for immediate secession. Now 
that the Union was destroyed, Virginia should lose no 
time in getting from beneath the ruins. Mr. Carlile 
replied for the Union men: 

"It is exceedingly fortunate for the gentleman from 
Greenville, exceedingly fortunate, for the people of the 
state and for all posterity that he has not his way 
to-day. This firing process has been going on now for 

^ The Dispatch, March 4, 1861. 



THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 139 

months. It is resorted to day after day in this con- 
vention to effect, if possible, the purposes of gentlemen 
who seem to have a perfect contempt for the will of the 
people. In what state that has passed an ordinance of 
secession have the people spoken or been heard .'^ 
Wherever they have been allowed to speak, whether 
upon the soil of our native Virginia or upon that of her 
daughter, Kentucky, or upon that of gallant Tennessee, 
they have spoken in terms not to be misunderstood of 
their indisposition to be dragged into this movement to 
destroy their own fair, free government. And the time 
has come when this firing process should be met and 
promptly met, and while I have a voice to raise or an 
arm to lift if no one else will meet it I will attempt it." ^ 

* From documents in possession of Carlile's daughter, who 
has very kindly permitted the author to use them. 

The Secessionists recognized in Carlile a dangerous enemy, 
possibly the only man from the west they need fear much. Mr. 
Willey was as able a man, but his "trimming" propensities de- 
tracted from the effect his excellently prepared speeches would 
otherwise have had. The Richmond Enquirer singled Carlile 
out as its special object of attack and devoted many columns 
to this purpose. The following appeared the day after Carlile 
had made his first Union speech: "When a politician stands 
before the Convention of Virginia's sovereignty to justify the 
coercive threats of Abraham Lincoln; to declare that Southern 
rights have suffered no injury from Northern aggression; sneer- 
ingly and without warrant to impute to Virginia's weakness 
the accidental fact that 'fourteen Federal marines took John 
Brown out of the engine-house at Harper's Ferry' we recognize 
him only as a 'Black Republican,' as an enemy against whom 
we warn the true men of Virginia. He has dealt unsparingly 
in epithets. He has denounced the people of South Carolina 
as 'rebels' and the people of Louisiana as 'thieves.' Let him 
calmly consider whether his open defense of 'Black Republican' 
coercion does or does not constitute treason." 

Carlile made reply a few days later in the convention and 
defied the Enquirer to do its worst. 

That Carlile had some support in Richmond is shown by the 
fact that the NatioTial Intelligencer, Mch. 29, told of the presenta- 
tion to Carlile of a testimonial from the "ladies of Richmond." 



140 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. Willey gave evidence of being in sympathy with 
his colleague's views by addressing the convention in 
support of the same side. He began with a review of 
secession and attacked the doctrine not from the con- 
stitutional viewpoint but from the practical side. The 
election of Lincoln following the refusal of the North- 
ern states to repeal their personal liberty laws was a 
real grievance, but there was no certainty that Virginia 
would be better out of the Union than in it. The pos- 
sible evils were greater than the ones they were now 
facing. Speaking as a citizen of the northwest, his rea- 
sons for opposing disunion were especially good ones. 
In the event of war that section would be absolutely 
helpless in the face of a Union army. Bordered by the 
great states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, a hostile army 
could be thrown into western Virginia within twenty- 
four hours and in less than twice that time the whole 
section could be overrun. No help could be expected 
from the East, said Mr. Willey, for the people there 
would have their own homes to defend. Secession would 
bring a train of woes upon the state such as it had 
never known before.-^ 

We shall pause for a moment in our consideration of 
the work of the convention to take up the question of 
the effect produced by Lincoln's Inaugural Address. 
It will be remembered that the President disclaimed any 
intention of interfering with slavery where it already 
existed. But he also took the position that secession 
was unconstitutional and therefore the Union was un- 

*The Carlile documents. 



THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 141 

broken. No offense was taken at this until it appeared 
that it was more than an academic pronouncement and 
that the President really intended to enforce the Fed- 
eral laws in the seceded states. This became the storm 
center. One Virginia paper which had hitherto taken 
the Union side now declared that it was clear that 
coercion was intended and Virginia should voice her dis- 
pleasure in no uncertain terms. ^ The address was de- 
nounced as "ill-judged, and calculated to lead to evil 
results" by another former Union paper.^ A third af- 
firmed that Lincoln had meant to be conciliatory, but 
failed to appreciate the depth of feeling in the South. 
The people of Norfolk were warned that the address 
had extinguished the last hope of a peaceful settlement.^ 
while the people of Wheeling were congratulated that 
the new administration had shown itself in its true light 
so early in its career.^ The conservative press went 
over almost en masse to the Secessionist side. The Ad- 
dress was interpreted to mean but one thing, a declara- 
tion of war, and the greatest indignation was expressed 
that the President dared even to hint at coercion under 
any circumstances.^ It must be clear to all that Vir- 
ginia should unite herself with the South in resistance 
to Lincoln's despotism or assent to the subjugation of 
the South. ^ One paper could not see anything espe- 



^ Fredericksburg Herald, March 7, 1861. 

^Lynchburg Virginian, March 7th. 

^Norfolk Herald, March 6th. 

* Wheeling Press, March 6th. 

° Bedford Herald and Danville Register, March 6th. 

' Charlottesville Jefersonicm, March 6th. 



142 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

cially menacing in Lincoln's Inaugural, but recognized 
the fact that under the strained condition of affairs it 
would lead to trouble.^ The Richmond Enquirer de- 
nounced the convention for its failure to break away 
from the Union after it knew what the intentions of the 
President were; but, declared this journal, "it is of 
little consequence what the convention does because 
Virginia will have to fight anyway." ^ One local con- 
temporary echoes these words and adds that there was 
now no reason why all the border states should not go 
out in twenty-four hours ; ^ while another, heretofore a 
Union paper, stated that the policy as outlined in the 
Address "would meet with stem, unyielding resistance 
by the solid South." * 

The views of the members of the convention varied, 
as was natural, according to party, but none came out 
openly to defend the "coercion clause." Jubal A. 
Early, a stanch Unionist, said: "I do not approve of 
the Inaugural of Mr. Lincoln and I did not expect to 
be able to endorse his policy; . . . but, Sir, I ask 
... if it were not for the fact that six or seven states 
of this Confederacy have seceded from this Union, if the 
declaration of President Lincoln that he would execute 
the laws in all the states would not have been hailed 
throughout the country as a guarantee that he would 
perform his duty and that we should have peace and 
protection for our property and that the Fugitive 

* Alexandria Gazette, March 8th. 
^Richmond Enquirer, March 7th. 
^ Richmond Dispatch, March 8th. 

* Richmond Whig, March 8th. 



THE VIRGINIA CONTENTION OF 1861 143 

Slave laws would be faithfully executed?" ^ Not many, 
even among the Union men, took such a moderate view 
of the situation created by the Inaugural Address. 
The majority of them shook their heads doubtfully and 
looked for the worst to happen. 

With the press and the people of eastern Virginia 
almost unanimously of the opinion that the Union was 
irrevocably destroyed ; with the feeling almost universal 
that Virginia could never continue in the Northern 
confederacy after it had begun to make war on the se- 
ceded states ; and with the positive assurance that the 
President intended to use the army and navy against 
those states, the greatest wonder is that the Richmond 
Convention did not pass an ordinance of secession early 
in March. The Secessionists clearly saw their oppor- 
tunity and sought by every means to use the advantage 
which they had gained.^ But the convention remained 
firm against the continued assaults and while there was 
quite an appreciable accession to the Secessionist 
ranks, yet it was not great enough to accomplish what 
the leaders wished. More resolutions poured in, most of 
them aiming at a common goal — secession — and all were 

^Munford, "Virginia's Attitude toward Slavery and Seces- 
sion," p. 267. 

='Thus declares one Virginia writer: "Then was the time for 
the Virginia Convention to have withdrawn from the Union, in- 
stead of talking two months and then withdrawing after the 
policy of coercion had been determined upon. If Virginia and 
the border states had then seceded it is highly probable that 
there would have been no war; but the continual delay encour- 
aged the Federal Government to think that they would not 
secede and the policy of coercion was decided upon." — Bio- 
graphical Sketch of M. R. H. Garnett; William and Mary 
Quarterly, VoL 18, pp. 17-37; 71-89. 



144 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

referred to the Committee on Federal Relations, whose 
work became so heavy that its members were excused 
from attendance at the sessions of the convention. One 
resolution provided for a convention of the border 
states and an immediate report by a Committee on the 
subject of Federal coercion.-"^ An amendment was of- 
fered by Mr. Leake that, whereas Virginia had been 
foremost in the formation of the Union and the attempt 
to preserve the Union, her loyalty could not be doubted ; 
but since the Constitution was broken by the outrages 
of a sectional majority, Virginia could not honorably 
remain in the Union. Another amendment declared 
that since it had become so evident to all that the Chief 
Executive of the United States intended to plunge the 
country into war, Virginia should take such steps as 
would ensure her ability to defend herself in case of 
invasion.^ 

On March 8th Mr. Carlile made an attack upon the 
Richmond Enquirer, charging it with engineering a 
scheme to force Virginia out of the Union. His ac- 
cusations were so general that we are forced to believe 
that Carlile's evidence of such a plot was all hearsay. 
His remarks gave great offense to the Secessionists, es- 
pecially his characterization of secession as treason. 
He denied that Virginia had any reasonable excuse for 
secession; declared that since 1845 they had had the 
right to increase the number of slave states, but had not 
done so because "slavery was governed by soil, by cli- 

^ Journal, p. 82-3. 
* Ibid. 



THE VIRGINIA CONTENTION OF 1861 145 

mate, and by interests." ^ The same day was marked 
by an altercation between Mr. Early and Mr. Goode 
which nearly resulted in a duel." The latter had ex- 
pressed some doubt as to the truthfulness of a certain 
statement of Mr. Early, who lost no time in taking up 
the remark as an aspersion upon his character. 
Friends intervened and the affair was settled amicably.^ 
Mr. Wysor kept up the "firing process" by submit- 
ting an ordinance dissolving all political connection be- 
tween Virginia and the United States. His bill of in- 
dictments against the Northern states was a long one : 
They had assailed negro slavery most unscrupulously; 
they had used the United States mails for the purpose 
of spreading discontent among the negroes ; they had 
abused the freedom of the press and of speech by their 
incendiary articles and speeches on slavery ; they had 
instigated John Brown's Raid; they had refused obedi- 
ence to the United States Constitution and laws pro- 
viding for the rendition of escaped criminals and fugi- 
tive slaves ; they had shut slavery up in its present 
bounds, thus excluding the South from equal participa- 
tion in the affairs of the territories.* Mr. Brent, a 
delegate from the Alexandria district, attacked these 
doctrines and expressed the belief that South Carolina 

^ Richmond Dispatch, March 9th. 

^ This was a day of excitement. In the evening a large Union 
meeting was held. The principal address was made by Mr. 
Rives, the burden of whose plea was that Virginia should re- 
main mistress of her own destiny. The gathering broke up with 
three cheers for Mr. Carlile. — The Dispatch, March 9th. 

3 Ibid. 

* Journal, pp. 91-3. 



146 THE DISRUPTION OF VIEGINIA 

was as much at fault as the North. For thirty years 
her one object had been the breaking up of the Federal 
Union; now she was going to drag Virginia down into 
the abyss with her if they were not careful.^ 

March 9th the Committee on Federal Relations made 
its report, which gave unmistakable proof that the 
members of the committee had been much at variance. 
Nothing really definite had been agreed to, although 
they had endeavored to cover this defect by making 
their recommendations in the boldest terms. The doc- 
trine of states' rights was, of course, upheld ; the right- 
eousness of the institution of slavery was affirmed ; while 
it was asserted that all the states of the Union pos- 
sessed equal rights in the territories. It was agreed 
that the Southern states should not submit to the ap- 
pointment of Federal officials in the slave states, if 
these officials were known to be hostile to slavery. The 
Secessionists had succeeded in inserting a clause to the 
effect that in case of secession the forts and arsenals 
of the United States reverted back to the states. The 
other recommendations presented by the committee were 
that Congress should be asked to pass a more stringent 
fugitive slave law, and that a border-state convention 
should be called to meet at Frankfort, Kentucky.^ 

Five substitutes for this report were offered. One, by 
Mr. Wise, would postpone secession only until the time 
when the North refused definitely to accede to the de- 
mands of the South. Messrs. Harvie, Montague, and 

^The Dispatch, March 12th. 
'Journal, pp. 85-6. 



THE VIRGINIA CONTENTION OF 1861 147 

Williams made their minority report a recommendation 
for the immediate passage of an ordinance of secession. 
Mr. Barbour would send commissioners to the Confed- 
eracy to confer with the authorities as to the present 
state of affairs. Mr. Baldwin wished the convention 
to endorse the constitutional amendments drawn up by 
the Peace Conference as the most satisfactory solution 
for the problems which they were called upon to solve. ^ 
At the same time the Federal authorities should be re- 
quested to abstain from any effort to enforce the laws 
in the seceded states, since the inevitable result would 
be civil war.^ The other two substitutes suggested 
nothing new and only offered additional evidence of the 
lack of harmony which must have prevailed in the com- 
mittee. 

A new plan was now resorted to by the Secessionists. 
Every day there would be presented a batch of resolu- 
tions adopted at mass meetings held in various parts of 



^ The recommendations of the Peace Commissioners were al- 
most exactly the same as those suggested by Governor Letcher 
in his message to the legislature at its initial session in January. 
— The Journal of the Virginia Assembly, p. 17. 

* Journal, pp. 96-7. Resolutions adopted at a mass meeting in 
Jackson County (now West Virginia) April 1, 1861, declared 
that the few Union people there deserved no consideration, and 
instructed their delegate at Richmond to vote for an ordinance 
of secession. Meeting gave three cheers for Jeff Davis and 
nine groans for Abe Lincoln. — Kanawha Valley Star, April 2, 
1861. Public meetings in Guyandotte, April 20th, and Boone 
County, April 30th, adopted the same resolutions. The Kanawha 
Valley Star, in an editorial April 30th said: "There are no 
'Black Republicans' in Virginia except in Wheeling. . . . Should 
the Abolitionists of Ohio send an invading army into western 
Virginia, not a soldier of them will return alive. The mountain 
boys would shoot them down as dogs." 



148 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

the state, nearly all of which urged the convention to 
pass an ordinance of secession at once, and "dissolve 
the odious connection of Virginia with the Federal Gov- 
ernment." It was declared "that the time for adjust- 
ment had passed ; that we regard it the imperative duty 
of the Virginia Convention now to pass an ordinance of 
secession; that the highest respect is due South Caro- 
lina and the rest of the seceded states. We honor them 
for their wisdom, their decisive boldness, and their 
humane forbearance." ^ 

On the 12th two prominent delegates from the west 
spoke. Mr. Summers, who had been characterized as 
the ablest jurist in the state, held the floor for three 
hours outlining his policy which seems to have been 
nothing more than "standing pat." He declared his 
inability to see that slavery was in any danger. On the 
contrary, he claimed, it was gaining ground every day 
in western Virginia. Mr. Willey again warned the con- 
vention that disunion by the action of the state was 
synonymous with the division of the state. With four 
hundred and fifty miles of exposed border western Vir- 
ginia would be helpless. "Will you place us in this ex- 
tremity.^ Will you bring this desolation upon us.'^ 
Will you expose our wives and children to the sword 
and to the ravages of civil war? . . . Will you make 
northwestern Virginia the Flanders of America?" he 
asked. ^ 

About this time reports began to be circulated that 

^ Journal, p, 99. 

^Wheeling Intelligencer, March 13th. 



THE VIRGINIA CONTENTION OF 1861 149 

great numbers of the more prominent citizens of the 
state were preparing to move south unless the conven- 
tion passed an ordinance of secession very shortly. It 
was rumored that thirty families in Amelia County 
and as many as one hundred families in Mecklenburg 
County were making arrangements to emigrate to some 
state which had left the Union. ^ The Richmond Dis- 
patch was very much exercised over the possibility of 
losing some of its citizens and says : "If this state of 
things continues the slaveholding portion of Virginia 
will be impoverished. What madness, what folly and 
wickedness is it in our convention to attempt to force 
an unnatural and repugnant union with the Yankee 
states !'* The purpose of these reports was so evident 
that the effect produced was slight. The Union men 
refused to believe that anyone of prominence would give 
up his Virginia home on such a trivial excuse. Some 
claimed that even if it should turn out to be the truth, 
the ultimate effect would be the abolition of slavery. 
"Political demagogues make these threats to fire up 
the Southern heart, to force Virginia out of the Union," 
said one writer.^ 

March 14th John Tyler took his seat in the conven- 
tion and at once threw the weight of his authority on 
the side of secession. He announced that the whole 
country was watching intently to see what the conven- 
tion did and so powerful would be the influence if Vir- 
ginia left the Union that the Federal Government would 

1 The Dispatch, March 13th. 

2 "The Conspiracy Unveiled," p. 163 et seq. 



150 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

not dare to adopt coercive measures toward the South. 
As for internal dissensions within the state, Mr. Tyler 
refused to believe that the west entertained any notion 
of breaking away from the east in the event of the 
passage of a secession ordinance. At heart the citizens 
of transmontane Virginia were as loyal to the Southern 
cause as their fellows of the east.-^ 

The end of the first month found the convention 
scarcely more determined upon its policy than it had 
been at the beginning. There was a general sifting 
down of the less determined delegates, to be sure, but 
the defection from the Union ranks was not so pro- 
nounced as was expected. Some of the delegates from 
the southwest had gone over to the Secessionist side and, 
as is usually the case with recent converts, they were 
supporting the doctrines of their former opponents 
with great zeal. But the mass of Union men held firm 
and refused to be moved either by threat or blandish- 
ment. The Secessionists were beginning to despair of 
ever putting through an ordinance of secession. They 
made the accusation that the western delegates were 
bargaining with some of the eastern members, the agree- 
ment being that the questions of changing the basis of 
representation and providing for the equal taxation 
of slaves would not be urged if the convention did not 
pass an ordinance of secession.^ A similar charge had 
been made before, much to the delight of the Union men, 
who considered a resort to such tactics an acknowledge- 

*The Dispatch, March 16th. 

" Richmond Enquirer, March 17th. 



THE VIRGINIA CONTENTION OF 1861 151 

ment by the Secessionists of certain defeat.^ The 
western members had become marked men in Richmond, 
as they discovered every time they appeared upon the 
streets or spoke in the hall of the convention. At the 
conclusion of an address delivered on the 15th, Mr. 
Carlile was roundly hissed by the galleries.^ In the 
evening a large crowd gathered at the market and tore 
down a Union flag, which was floating there. Some 
fiery speeches were made and one orator advised his 
hearers to drive the convention out of the city at the 
point of the bayonet.^ The convention was described 
by one editorial writer as "the block and tackle that 
confines Virginia in Lincoln's yard." ^ Secessionist 
speakers were imported and scarcely a day passed that 
they did not address some assembly. The daily papers 
were filled with letters from Southern leaders beseech- 
ing Virginia to assume her proper place in the new 
Confederacy and holding out the most glittering al- 
lurements when this was accomplished.^ The state it- 
self did not escape abuse on account of its refusal to 
leave the Union. It was declared that Virginia had lost 
its ancient pride and was content with remaining a 
vassal of the North. Cajolery, however, was resorted to 
more frequently then denunciation by the Southern 
press. The position of Virginia as the foremost state 

* Wheeling Intelligencer^ March 19th. 

» Ibid. 

^Morgantown Star, March 16th. 

*The Dispatch, March 19th. 

"The Richmond Whig on March 12th had gone over to the 
Secessionist side, thus leaving the Union men without a single 
newspaper in the Capitol. 



152 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

of the South was freely acknowledged. All the various 
changes on Southern pride were rung in. So one ar- 
ticle reads : "Dear old Virginia, we love you ; we know 
not how to give you up. Oh, for some voice like Patrick 
Henry's to overcome the present submissive majority in 
your convention ! To every true son of Virginia we 
say, 'Come with us and we will do you good.' " ^ 
Northern papers exulted at the prospect of keeping 
Virginia in the Union. The loyal men in the convention 
were represented as refusing bribes and disregarding 
threats.^ 

These hopeful signs were all on the surface, however. 
It cannot be doubted that a powerful secession wave 
was sweeping over the eastern part of the state. By- 
elections here and there show that the Union cause was 
losing strength. An election at Petersburg held March 
16th resulted in a victory for the Secessionist candidate 
by a vote or 829 to 762. On the previous election in 
February the Union candidate had won out by the sub- 
stantial majority of 586 out of a total of 1,440 votes 
cast. The same result is noticed all over the state, 
where the people were called upon to register their 
opinions. If a general election for delegates to the con- 
vention had been held at this time the Secessionists 
would have swept the state east of the Alleghany Moun- 
tains. It was the realization of this fact that aroused 
the advocates of secession and made them denounce the 
convention for its refusal to accede to the wishes of 

^ Atlanta Constitution, March 19th. 
^ Pittsburg Chronicle, March 20th. 



THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 153 

the majority of the people. With press and people 
against them to such an extent, the great marvel is that 
the Union men held together so long.^ 

On the 16th Mr. Burley, one of the very few uncom- 
promising Union men in the convention, presented a 
series of resolutions affirming the indissolubility of the 
Union ; condemning the doctrine of secession as a fal- 
lacy ; and upholding the principle that Federal prop- 
erty everywhere belonged to the Federal Government. 
The sixth resolution, in view of later events, has an 
especial significance: 

"Resolved, That the right of revolution . . . can be 
exercised as well by a portion of the citizens of a state 
against their state government as it can be exercised 
by the whole people of a state against their federal 
government; and, when the powers of a state govern- 
ment are used for purposes of unjust discrimination 
against a portion of the citizens or a particular sec- 
tion of the state in imposing upon one portion or sec- 
tion an undue proportion of the burdens of the state 
government and exempting from taxation a peculiar 
species of property belonging, to a great extent, to an- 
other portion of the citizens and located mostly in an- 
other section of the state . . . the people thus op- 
pressed . . . would be justified in resisting the col- 
lection of all revenue from them until the injustice 
aforesaid was remedied. And that any change of the 
relation Virginia now sustains to the Federal Govern- 

^ A mass meeting was held on the evening of March 15th in 
Richmond. While Roger A. Pryor was speaking, three hun- 
dred men from Petersburg marched in, carrying a Confederate 
flag. A petition requesting the convention to pass a secession 
ordinance received 1700 signatures. — The Dispatch, March 16th. 



154 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

ment against the wishes of even a respectable minority 
of her people would be such an act of injustice as to 
justify them in changing their relations to the state 
government by separating themselves from that section 
of the state that had thus wantonly disregarded their 
interests and defied their will.'^ ^ 

Mr. Willey followed this up with four resolutions 
providing for the reform of taxation and the adoption 
of the white basis of representation. The eastern mem- 
bers refused to be diverted from their main purpose, but 
feared to alienate the west beyond hope of reconcilia- 
tion if they rejected without consideration the proposi- 
tion of amending the constitution. A motion to lay the 
resolutions on the table went over until the next day 
when they were taken up as unfinished business. The 
motion to table being withdrawn, a long and heated dis- 
cussion took place. Mr. Brown of Kanawha County 
declared that the west, while not an abolition country 
by any means, was united in its endeavors to secure 
more equitable taxation laws. Mr. Fisher of Northamp- 
ton appealed to the western members not to raise old 
sectional questions at that time and claimed that they 
were under a pledge not to do so before the year 1865. 
Speaking for the Secessionists he said: "If he (Willey) 
will give us an ordinance of secession and go before the 
people pledging himself in good faith to make the effort 
to induce them to ratify it, I will go into a considera- 
tion of the question of taxation and representation." 
This proposal was attacked by Mr. Early as subversive 

*JcHimal, pp. 103-4. 



THE VIRGINIA CONYENTION OF 1861 155 

of the principles of a convention. Mr. Wilson declared 
that the east could blame itself if the state was split 
asunder. Its shortsighted policy of refusing to make 
internal improvements in the west had been the cause 
of all the disputes and misunderstandings. It was too 
late to change conditions now.^ The general feeling 
was that Willej's resolutions were introduced only for 
the purpose of drawing the fire of the Secessionists 
toward them and diverting it away from secession ; but 
the western delegates were none the less zealous in their 
advocacy of a revision of the constitution of the state. 
Mr. Haymond, speaking on the 19th and 20th, denied 
that there had been any agreement not to make any 
alterations in the organic law of the state before 1865 
and challenged anyone to prove such assertions. Times 
had changed since 1851, said Mr. Haymond, and the 
state was now facing a tremendous problem. Secession 
would mean that the west would bear the brunt of the 
attack from the North and at the same time continue 
to pay more than her share for the defense of untaxed 
slave property in the east. Nothing could be more 
inequitable. Speaking as a slaveholder and one who 
firmly believed in slavery as an institution, he was 
nevertheless ready to affirm his belief that negro slavery 
was at the bottom of all their troubles, state and na- 
tional.^ Mr. Holcombe of Albemarle County declared 
that if the South were invaded from Ohio, the patriotic 
citizens of West Virginia would rise as a body and repel 

* Pittsburgh Chronicle, March 17th. 
'Wheeling Intelligencer, March 21st. 



156 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

the attack. He made a passionate appeal to the 
western delegates to come to the aid of the state and 
painted the glories of an independent Virginia in the 
most glowing colors.^ 

The east, however, was not content to rest under the 
imputation that it was being supported by the west 
and the dispute was carried on by the newspapers and 
on the floor of the convention in a manner that reminds 
one of the earlier constitutional conventions. Figures 
were given, in rebuttal of the claim of Mr. Haymond 
that the west paid annually into the state treasury 
$690,000 and received almost nothing in return, which 
showed that the burden of taxation fell upon the east 
in the proportion of two to one. The Tidewater and 
Piedmont contributed each year $2,104,386, while the 
Valley and Trans- Alleghany paid but $1,216,899. Gen- 
eral taxes were raised largely in the east. Thus it 
became evident that the west in its advocacy of further 
taxation revision had in view the object of taxing 
slavery out of existence. The convention should pro- 
ceed to the consideration of the main business without 
regard to the "western demagogues." " The debates 
dragged on without any kind of agreement being 
reached. The western members were divided into two 
groups, one favoring immediate adjournment, and the 
other desiring to remain until their grievances had been 

^ At the conclusion of Holcombe's address the galleries went 
wild with enthusiasm and it became necessary to clear them; 
but as usual the order was rescinded upon the solicitation of 
some of the Secessionist leaders. — The Dispatch, March 21st. 

2 The Dispatch, March 21st. 



THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 157 

redressed. Some of the Secessionists professed them- 
selves willing to do anything to preserve the unity of 
the state, even to burdening themselves stiU more with 
taxes ; but others declared their willingness to let the 
west go if it so desired. That section had never dis- 
played the proper spirit and in case of war would likely 
prove a hindrance instead of a help.^ 

March 27th Mr. Rives made a notable speech which 
showed that he had still a good claim to the title 
"Union man." So fairly did he present his side of the 
questions that it evoked applause from the spectators.^ 
He boldly denounced the Virginia Senators, Hunter 
and Mason, for their misrepresentation of the state. 
Taking up the great issues, he declared that the South 
had no real interest in extending slavery; the scarcity 
of slaves in western Virginia was proof that the insti- 
tution would never exist where economic conditions were 
unfavorable. As for the escape of slaves, the masters 
could blame themselves and not the Northern states. 
Virginia should play a waiting game until it appeared 
beyond the shadow of a doubt that the general govern- 
ment was resolved upon coercion. Then they might 
say, "Come on ; we are ready for you." ^ Another mod- 

^The Dispatch, March 22nd. 

2 Ibid., March 28th. 

^ In the evening of the day when Rives delivered this speech, 
which was pronounced the best Union effort of the session, a 
Union mass meeting was held. It would not, however, have 
been designated as "Union" anywhere but in the South, for if 
any of those present were "submissionists" they did not make 
their presence known. All agreed with Rives that Virginia 
should remain in the Union only if it could be done with honor. 
The Dispatch unwillingly pronounced the meeting a great success. 



158 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

erate Union man, McFarland of Richmond, denied that 
Virginia was a sovereign state and declared that so 
long as it remained in the Union it must obey the Fed- 
eral laws. This doctrine was denounced by Mr. Wise 
as "the impudence of old federalism." -^ 

On the 20th the Secessionists had won what appeared 
to be a decisive victory by having adopted a resolution, 
instructing the Committee on Federal Relations to in- 
quire into the expediency of submitting to the people 
of the state two ordinances, one providing for immedi- 
ate secession, and the other for a series of amendments 
to the United States Constitution which should be Vir- 
ginia's ultimatum to the Federal Government.^ It will 
thus be seen that no vote on the straight issue of seces- 
sion was to be permitted. The only question would be. 
How will you have your secession? The committee, 
however, on the 30th reported the resolution adversely, 
expressing their conviction that the convention should 
first decide as to the general policy of the state and 
then allow the people to confirm or reject it. 

Going back to the consideration of the majority re- 
port, a number of new propositions were brought in. 
Mr. Hall moved to substitute for the committee report 
the constitution of the Confederate states.^ The mo- 
tion was quickly laid on the table. Turner, another 

^The Dispatch, March 28th. 

^Journal, p. 113. 

"Journal, p. 109. Mr. Hall was denounced by his western asso- 
ciates as a renegade but he was lionized by the people of Rich- 
mond, who presented him with a cane in token of their apprecia- 
tion of his stand for the "honor of Virginia." 



THE VIKGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 159 

westerner, offered the Crittenden proposals as a sul> 
stitute. Mr. Wise wished the convention to go on rec- 
ord as favoring the appointment of Federal judges by 
the United States Senate. Mr. Scott advocated send- 
ing a final proposal to the non-slaveholding states, upon 
the rejection of which Virginia should leave the Union. 
Mr. Early again spoke in favor of a border-state con- 
vention.^ Apparently no one was capable of suggest- 
ing anything which met with the approval of a ma- 
jority of the delegates. 

April 5th a vote was taken on the adoption of an 
ordinance of secession. It was defeated but the result 
indicated that the cause of disunion was steadily gain- 
ing. The following day some real progress was made 
when the first eight resolutions of the committee report 
were adopted. By this action the convention affirmed 
its belief in the following principles : states-rights ; non- 
interference with slavery; the exclusion from the slave 
states of Federal officials known to be hostile to slavery ; 
equal rights in the territories ; state ownership of Fed- 
eral forts and arsenals. The intention was avowed to 
use every effort to preserve the Union but the Federal 
Government should agree to three things ; namely, the 
better enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law; the re- 
duction of government expenditures ; and the repeal by 
the Northern states of any laws hostile to slavery. The 
last resolution denied that the Federal Government 
could use the army and the navy for the purpose of 
bringing back any state which had seceded. Mr. Car- 

* Wheeling Intelligencer, April 2d. 



160 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

lile made an effort to have the report of the Peace 
Conference substituted for the committee report but 
the convention refused to rescind its action.^ 

The majority of the Secessionists were displeased 
with the moderate character of the resolutions. Some 
of them despaired of ever persuading the convention to 
adopt more drastic measures and pretended to be will- 
ing to vote for an adjournment sine die. The Dispatch 
of April 6th thus gives vent to its feelings : 

"We have never been able to feel that interest in the 
proceedings of the convention which should have at- 
tached to that body if we could believe that its deci- 
sions would have the slightest weight upon the future 
of Virginia. . . . We would not, however, disturb the 
innocent official complacency which takes it for granted 
that what the convention says Virginia will do. No 
well-regulated mind will desire to deprive children in 
the larger or the smaller growth of any harmless means 
of entertainment." 

No better proof is desired that the Secessionists 
themselves failed to perceive that the tide had turned 
in their favor, and that the convention w^hich they ^so 
roundly denounced was in a state of transition just 
preceding the complete overthrow of the Union forces. 

On April 8th it was agreed that the convention should 
send a delegation of three men to Washington, for the 
purpose of getting from the President a statement of 
what course he intended to pursue toward the seceded 
states. The Unionists saw clearly that the purpose in 
* Wheeling Intelligencer, April 6th. 



THE VIRGINIA CONTENTION OF 1861 161 

adopting this resolution was an ulterior one ; they fore- 
saw what the effect would be when the committee re- 
turned from Washington with an unsatisfactory answer 
from Lincoln, who could not be expected to give out 
any positive information. "When the committee re- 
turns," said Mr. Jackson, "we shall be expected to rush 
off like a flock of sheep right into the arms of the 
Southern Confederacy ; where, so help me God, I do not 
mean to go under any circumstances." ^ Carlile, al- 
ways fertile in suggestions, moved an amendment 
whereby another delegation should be sent to the South- 
ern Confederacy to discover what policy the authorities 
intended to pursue toward the North.^ It was re- 
jected. Mr. Montague expressed the opinion that the 
three factions in the convention should be represented 
on the committee : the Secessionists, the moderates, and 
"the third, a little lower down." As for himself he 
would refuse to serve unless he was permitted to use his 
own method with Lincoln. The latter, "ignoramus as 
he was, did not understand the sentiments of this peo- 
ple." ^ By a unanimous vote Alexander H. H. Stuart, 
George W. Randolph and William Ballard Preston 
were chosen to constitute the committee. Mr. Stuart 
was, presumably, the representative of the faction "a 

^ The Intelligencer, April 9th. 

^ Mr. Wise remarked ominously, that if Carlile's amendment 
carried and he (Carlile) served on the committee it would "be 
the last of him." — Private correspondence of Carlile. 

Carlile was scoffed at in the convention; laughed at and in- 
sulted on the streets, and once was threatened with hanging by 
a mob which surrounded his boarding house — so he afterwards 
claimed. 

' Richmond Enquirer, April 9th. 



162 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

little lower down," but if by that was meant uncondi' 
tional Unionist the convention chose the wrong man. 
There was really little difference in the opinions of 
Preston and Stuart, and since Randolph was an avowed 
Secessionist it left the real Union men, like Carlile, 
Willey and Burley unrepresented. The Trans-Alle- 
ghany was ignored as usual. 

Lincoln received the delegation "courteously but 
rather coldly." It was too late for him to alter the 
program decided upon and Sumter even then was under 
fire. To guard against such mistakes as were likely to 
be made in a verbal reply he wrote out his answer care- 
fully and read it to the commissioners on the morning 
of April 13th. It was little more than a reaffirmation 
of the policy outlined in his Inaugural Address, ex- 
pressed in more positive terms : 

"If," said he, "as now appears to be true, in pursuit 
of a purpose to drive the United States authorities from 
these places, an unprovoked assault has been made upon 
Fort Sumter, I shall hold myself at liberty to repos- 
sess, if I can, like places which had been seized before 
the government was devolved upon me. And in every 
event I shall to the extent of my ability repel force by 
force. In case it proves true that Fort Sumter has 
been assaulted, as is reported, I shall perhaps cause the 
United States mails to be withdrawn from all the states 
which claim to have seceded, believing that the com- 
mencement of actual war against the government jus- 
tifies and possibly demands this. I scarcely need to 
say that I consider the military posts and property 
situated within the states which claim to have seceded, 
as yet belonging to the government of the United States 



THE VIRGINIA CONTENTION OF 1861 163 

as much as they did before the supposed secession. 
Whatever else I may now do for the purpose, I shall not 
attempt to collect the duties and imposts by any armed 
invasion of any part of the country; not meaning by 
this, however, that I may not land a force deemed nec- 
essary to relieve a fort upon a border of the country. 
From the fact that I have quoted a part of the Inaug- 
ural Address it must not be inferred that I repudiated 
any other part, the whole of which I reaffirm, except 
so far as what I now say of the mails may be regarded 
as a modification." '^ 

The committee made its report to the convention 
without comment, but their silence was more eloquent 
than anything they could have said. It was freely pre- 
dicted even among the Union men that upon the first 
hostile move by Lincoln, Virginia would be out of the 
Union so far as the action of the convention could take 
her out.^ 

Before proceeding further in narrating the course of 
events in the convention after secession became an as- 
sured fact, it may assist in a clearer understanding of 

^ "The Life, Public Services, and State Papers of Abraham 
Lincoln," pp. 179-80. (N. Y., 1865.) 

*The Dispatch still failed to read the signs aright, for on 
April 15, after Lincoln's answer had been received and the con- 
vention still did not pass the act of secession it says: "What the 
convention does or what it does not do is no longer a matter of 
the slightest importance or interest. It may refuse to the 
people the right to elect their own delegates to the border con- 
vention; it may pass a measure for a border convention, or a 
national convention, or a world's convention; it may order the 
millenium to occur forthwith or command the sun and moon to 
stand still; it may monopolize the sovereignty of the state or 
establish an elective monarchy and elect one of its members 
king; or it may do nothing and go home. Thank goodness for 
that." 



164 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

subsequent events to give an account of several inci- 
dents which undoubtedly influenced the convention to a 
greater or less degree. 

In the early part of April Lincoln, feeling that the 
Richmond Convention was a standing menace to the 
country because of the position of Virginia among the 
border states, made an effort to have it adjourned. To 
accomplish this purpose he was willing to make im- 
portant sacrifices, because he believed that the war, if 
it must come, could be confined to the gulf states. That 
great numbers of Virginians would enlist in the South- 
ern army he well knew, but the effect of this would be 
less important than the passage of a formal act of se- 
cession. Reasoning thus, he sent for George W. Sum- 
mers to come to Washington. Why the latter refused 
to go we are unable to say, but in his stead he sent 
John B. Baldwin, whose Unionism was equally unques- 
tioned. Baldwin was not a "submissionist," but Lin- 
coln did not want a man of this type, knowing very 
well that such a person would be without influence. The 
affair was carried on suh rosa and the whole story was 
not revealed until 1866, when the Joint Committee on 
Reconstruction was holding its sessions. Then, through 
the testimony of Mr. Baldwin, John F. Lewis, and John 
Minor Botts the truth was brought to light. Baldwin 
testified that he had gone to Washington at the request 
of Mr. Summers and had presented himself before the 
President on the morning of April 4th. Lincoln's first 
words were, "You have come too late." He then asked 
Baldwin why the convention could not be adjourned 



THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 165 

sine die. Baldwin replied that such a course would be 
a mistake, for the Union men were controlling the con- 
vention three to one. "We are controlling it for con- 
servative results," said he; "we can do it with perfect 
certainty if you will uphold our hands by a conservative 
policy here. I do not understand why you want a body 
thus in the hands of Union men to be dispersed or why 
you should look upon the sessions as in any respect a 
menace to you ; we regard ourselves as cooperating 
with you in the object which you express to seek; be- 
sides if we were to adjourn the convention sine die, 
leaving these questions unsettled in the midst of all the 
trouble that is ours, it would place the Union men of 
Virginia in the attitude of confessing an inability to 
meet the occasion. The result would be that another 
convention would be called." He went on to state his 
belief that in any new convention the Union men would 
be outnumbered and an ordinance of secession would 
be passed. His advice was for Lincoln to withdraw the 
troops from Fort Sumter in order to avoid a collision, 
because forty-eight hours after the first gun was fired 
Virginia would be out of the Union. According to 
Baldwin the incident closed there. ^ 

But the testimony of Mr. Botts, who had remained 
a Union man throughout the war in spite of social os- 
tracism and loss of property, contradicted Baldwin's. 
He was given an interview with Lincoln on April 7th. 
The President stated that he had put this proposition 
to Baldwin: That if he would go back to Richmond 

^ Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, pp. 69-73. 



166 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

and have the convention adjourned without passing an 

act of secession, "so anxious am I for the preservation 

of the peace of the country and to save Virginia and 

the other border states from going out that I will take 

the responsibility of evacuating Fort Sumter and take 

the chance of negotiating with the cotton states which 

have already gone out." Baldwin was told that the 

time was short as Governor Pickens had been warned 

that a fleet would be sent to Charleston if an effort was 

made to starve out Major Anderson, and the fleet was 

ready to sail at five o'clock that day. Lincoln told 

Botts that Baldwin had treated the off'er with scorn and 

thus the interview ended. Botts then asked that the 

same off'er be made to him, promising that he would 

have the convention adjourned in a few days. But it 

was too late, as the fleet had sailed and there was no 

way of communicating with it. The opportunity was 

thus gone, and Botts returned to Richmond under 

promise that he would not make the incident generally 

known.-"^ Botts was corroborated at every point by 

Mr. Lewis, whom Botts had let in on the secret. Lewis 

had gone to Baldwin and asked why he had kept back 

the off'er from the Union men of the convention. No 

answer to this was made as Baldwin became confused 

and left the house.^ 

It is a matter of conjecture what would have been 

the result had Lincoln's alleged off'er been made to the 

Union men of the convention. Possibly an adjourn- 

^ Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, pp. 102-109. 
"Ibid., pp. 114-123. 



THE VIRGINIA CONTENTION OF 1861 167 

merit would have been taken, in which case the legisla- 
ture could have called another convention (which surely 
would have been controlled by the Secessionists), or it 
might have proceeded to act on its own responsibility 
and passed an act of secession. That Virginia could 
have been kept in the Union after Lincoln's call for 
volunteers is difficult to believe. 

The other incident referred to has a more direct 
bearing on the action of the convention. 

On April 6th the Richmond Whig published the fol- 
lowing circular letter which, it stated, had been sent all 

throuffh the state: .,-r, xr- • . 

* "Richmond, Virginia. 

"1861. 
"Your presence is particularly requested at Rich- 
mond on the day of to consult with the 

friends of Southern rights as to the course which Vir- 
ginia should pursue in the present emergency. Please 
bring with you or send a full delegation of true and reli- 
able men from your county; and, if convenient, aid 
the same object in the surrounding counties. 

"On arriving at Richmond report yourself and com- 
panions immediately to at . 

(Signed) "Samuel Woods of Barbour 

John R. Chambliss of Greenville 
Chas. F. Collier of Petersburg 
John A. Harman of Augusta 
H. A. Wise of Princess Anne 
John T. Anderson of Botetourt 
Wm. F. Gordon of Albemarle 
Thos. Jefferson Randolph of Albemarle 
James A. ShefFey of Smythe." ^ 
*"The Conspiracy Unveiled," p. 242. 



168 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

To the Union men this letter meant that "intimida- 
tion and mob terror were to take the place of manly 
argument." ^ That it had a sinister signification is 
beyond denial and no one will contend that the cry of 
"coercion" by the Union delegates was without founda- 
tion. The actual work accomplished by these "true 
and reliable men" will be recounted later. John F. 
Lewis, who has the distinction of being the only eastern 
delegate who did not sign the ordinance of secession, 
declared that if it had not been for the fear of this 
self-constituted convention the ordinance would not 
have been passed, as the people of Virginia at that time 
were utterly opposed to secession.^ 

On the 9th of April the secession cause made a dis- 
tinct gain when the convention adopted a resolution 
recognizing the Confederate States and putting them 
on the footing of an independent power.^ When the 
fact is remembered that the convention had time and 
again gone on record in affirmation of the doctrine of 
states' rights and declared that the seven seceded states 
had merely acted in accordance with this doctrine, it 
seems strange that the convention had postponed for- 
mal recognition of the Confederacy until the second 
week in April. There were two reasons for this : One 
was that not all persons who professed to believe in the 
right of a state to secede were willing for the states to 
put that right into operation. They upheld it fervently 

^ The Wheeling Intelligencer, April 9th. 

^ Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, p. 71. 

'Journal, p. 145. 



THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 169 

as an abstract proposition, hoping thereby to check 
the progress of centralization ; but when the Union was 
actually in danger of being destroyed their ardor 
cooled. The other reason for the hesitancy of the con- 
vention was that its recognition of the Confederacy 
before that government had really established itself 
would be a departure from the traditional conservatism 
of Virginia. The western members had made a strong 
effort to prevent the passage of the resolution, but 
their opposition had been borne down in the swelling 
tide of secession.^ Failing in this, they attempted to 
have a committee appointed which should inquire into 
the expediency of amending the state constitution in 
such a manner that the existing inequalities should be 
remedied. The debate became quite bitter, the eastern 
members charging that the purpose of the west was to 
tax slavery out of existence, while the delegates from 
the west hinted at a division of the state unless their 
demands were complied with.^ 

The fight went on although the Union cause was now 
hopeless. Henry A. Wise, quite the most incompre- 
hensible man on the floor of the convention, still upheld 
his doctrine of "fighting in the Union." ^ His words 
are strangely in contrast with his actions : 

*One of the western members, Mr. Turner, complained that 
during the course of this debate he had been spit upon by the 
spectators in the gallery. — The Dispatch, April 10th. 

' Ibid. 

* Governor Wise in a letter to a friend explained what he 
meant by "fighting in the Union": "If a sovereign state is judge 
of the infractions, as well as the mode and measure of redress, 
she may remain in the Union to resent or resist wrongs as well 
as to do so out of the Union. . . . The Union is not an abstrac- 



170 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

"As to parting from the Union in my affections_j" 
said he, "I shall never do that. As to leaving its flag, 
whenever I leave this Confederacy, this north star Con- 
federacy, which makes the needle tremble northward, I 
shall carry the flag of the old Union out with me; and 
even if I have to fight, so help me God, I will fight with 
the Star-Spangled Banner in one hand and my musket 
in the other. I will never take the Southern Cross or 
any palmetto for my flag. I will never admit that a 
Yankee can drive me from the Union and take from 
me our Capitol. I will take from him forts ; I will take 
from him flags ; I will take from him our Capitol. I 
will take from him, if I can, my whole country and save 
the whole." 1 

Wise proposed that the convention should postpone 
action until the North was given time to accept or re- 
ject certain amendments to the United States Consti- 
tution. If no satisfactory reply was received by Oc- 
tober 1st Virginia should resume her sovereignty and 
unite with any new Union which would guarantee equal 

tion; it is a real substantial thing, embracing many essential and 
vital political rights and properties. Is it not cowardly to re- 
nounce one right to save another? ... If you secede, you not 
only renounce the Union and its possessions but you fail to 
unite your own people because you do renounce these rights. 
Wake a man up to destroy the Union and the Constitution, and 
he will stare at you and turn away. But tell him that the Con- 
stitution is infracted and the Union threatened by Black Re- 
publicans, and call him to aid you in defending both against 
those who would destroy both, and he will heartily agree with 
you. — Philadelphia Public Ledger, Dec. 12, 1860. 

^Wise, "Life of Henry A. Wise," p. 273. 

After the war Wise claimed that he had never fought under 
the Confederate flag, but had always carried under his coat a 
Virginia button which he said was his banner. — "The Rending 
of Virginia," p. 192. 



THE VIRGINIA CONTENTION OF 1861 171 

rights. In the meantime the United States should be 
requested to withdraw from the seceded states and 
reduce her forces in the other Southern forts. In case 
the United States made any attempt to enforce juris- 
diction over the people of the seceded states, Virginia 
was to institute armed resistance. This plan being 
rejected Wise offered as an alternative an ordinance of 
secession which was referred to the Committee of the 
Whole.i 

On the 13th the first of a series of telegraphic dis- 
patches from Governor Pickens of South Carolina was 
read. It came in response to an inquiry sent by Letcher 
asking if it was true that Fort Sumter had been fired 
upon. Pickens replied: "It is true and still continues. 
No damage done to anyone on our side or to our works. 
Great damage to Fort Sumter." ^ The Virginia Se- 
cessionists were jubilant, for it was becoming apparent 
that the Virginia heart was being "fired" at last. Jubal 
A. Early made a touching appeal to the convention 
not to rush out of the Union at the bidding of South 
Carolina. He said that he had never expected to see 
the day when Virginians would rejoice at hearing that 
their country's flag had been fired upon. Wise replied 
in a typical "fire-eating" speech, upon the conclusion 
of which another telegram from Governor Pickens was 
read. This time he went into details of the attempt 
that had been made to relieve Fort Sumter and of its' 
failure. He says, "We can sink the fleet if they at- 

^ Appendix of the Journal, p. 78. 
»/6id., p. 153. 



172 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

tempt the channel. If they land elsewhere we can whip 
them. I have here now near 7,000 of the best troops 
in the world and a reserve of 10,000 on our railroads. 
The war has commenced and we will triumph or perish. 
This is my answer to you. Please let me know what 
Virginia will do." ^ 

Tuesday the 16th the convention went into secret 
session, ostensibly for the purpose of considering the 
report of the committee sent to interview Lincoln. No 
one was deceived by this and the Union men, f eehng that 
it was the beginning of the end, made a desperate ef- 
fort to keep the sessions as they had been. The Gov- 
ernor was informed of what the convention was doing 
and was requested to communicate to the convention 
any information he might receive. On motion of Mr. 
Tyler he was asked to transmit at once any official 
dispatches from Washington calling upon Virginia for 
volunteers.^ 

All propositions looking toward compromise were 
now decisively rejected, even the one having for its ob- 
ject the calling of a border-state convention. William 
Ballard Preston, a former Union man, brought in an 
ordinance of secession, and the Union men, now a 
minority, made their last stand. Just what took place 
while the convention met in secret session has never 
been made public. Such accounts as have been given 
vary according to the sympathies of the narrator. 
Waitman T. Willey thus says: 

^ Appendix of the Journal, p. 155. 
''Ibid., pp. 158, 160. 



THE VIRGINIA CONTENTION OF 1861 173 

"The scenes witnessed within the walls of that room 
. . . have no parallel in the annals of ancient or mod- 
ern times. On the morning of the 17th Mr. Wise rose 
in his seat and drawing a large Virginia horse-pistol 
from his bosom laid it before him and proceeded to 
harangue the body in the most violent and denunciatory 
manner. He concluded by taking his watch from his 
pocket and, with glaring eyes and bated breath, de- 
clared that events were now transpiring which caused 
a hush to come over his soul. ... It was then that the 
Union members saw the object of the other assemblage 
which had sat with closed doors from its beginning and 
whose concealed hand, seizing the reins of government, 
had left the form without the power to resist." ^ 

The story of this "other assemblage" was afterwards 
told by one of its members, John D. Imboden. He re- 
lates that Wise, the prime mover, had despaired of get- 
ting the convention to act promptly. One day he met 
Wise on the street and the latter had reminded him of a 
promise he had made when Wise was Governor that if 
he was permitted to have the use of some field-pieces for 
a company of artillery at Staunton he would consider 
himself bound to use them as Wise desired. The latter 
replied: "What was then a joke is earnest now. I 
want those guns with which to aid in the immediate cap- 
ture of the United States arsenal at Harper's Ferry. 
Can they be had with all the men you can raise?" Im- 
boden pledged himself to get the guns and men. A 
meeting was arranged for and a delegation was sent 
to Governor Letcher, asking him for permission to take 



174 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

the arsenal in the name of Virginia. The Governor 
quickly replied that he could not sanction such an 
enterprise, as he was under pledge not to take any hos- 
tile steps without consulting the convention. The 
"allies" then agreed to act without any official author- 
ity and Wise assumed charge. He ordered the super- 
intendent of the arsenal, who was present, to go back to 
his post and do his duty there. Three other men were 
sent to set troops in motion. The President of the Cen- 
tral Railroad agreed to arrange for their transporta- 
tion. A dispatch from Norfolk was received which 
read as follows : "The powder magazine here can be 
taken and the Yankee vessels can be captured and sunk 
so as to obstruct the harbor. Shall we do it.?" Wise 
answered, "Yes." All this arranged for, he returned to 
the convention and made the speech which Willey de- 
scribes above. He told the convention what had been 
going on and asked if it would support the movement. 
Great excitement ensued, but the Governor was induced 
to acquiesce and the coup was successful. 

Imboden's description of subsequent events is as fol- 
lows: 

"After a very short conference Wise returned to his 
seat in the convention. Mr. Robert Y. Conrad was on 
the floor protesting warmly against the movement as 
unauthorized and illegal, involving, in fact, all the con- 
sequences of treason, and the whole people in a war to 
which the most of them were opposed. Mr. John B. 
Baldwin and others, but especially Mr. Baldwin, fol- 
lowed in a strain of awful lamentation and foreboding, 



THE VIRGINIA CONTENTION OF 1861 175 

denouncing the act as a usurpation, as revolutionary 
and disturbing to peaceful measures and interfering 
with the labors of the convention toward compromise 
and conciliation. He asked who had assumed to in- 
stigate and organize so rash a folly. Whoever they 
were he could not, for one, sanction or countenance 
their disastrous and unauthorized action. Wise arose 
and announced that he and he alone had originated and 
ordered the movement and assumed its whole responsi- 
bihty; and he inquired of Mr. Baldwin whether he 
would or not, now that the movement was on the march, 
aid the people who had waited on the convention too 
long in vain, in seizing arms for their own defense. Mr. 
Baldwin said he could not and he hoped the convention 
would not partake in such a fearful responsibility. It 
was not the act of the people, and those who had as- 
sumed to act for the whole state must ... lie upon it 
and take all the consequences, which he apprehended 
would be sad and fatal. They should not have his 
sanction, aid, or countenance. As yet it was not known, 
to him or the convention of what portion of the people 
the volunteers were composed. Wise then rose and said, 
*Mr. President, I have often heard old Augusta (Baldj 
win's county) boasted of as the heart of Virginia. . . . 
Let me tell the gentleman from Augusta that the patri- 
otic volunteer revolutionists are his constituents of 
Augusta, his friends and neighbors of Staunton. They 
are the men who are marching under my orders to take 
their own arms for their own defense. . . . Shall they 
be doomed unsupported to bloody beds.?' This appeal 
silenced Mr. Baldwin; he looked aghast; he dropped his 
mien of reprehension at the movement and the whole 
body . . . was thrown into bewildering excitement by 
Mr. Baylor, Baldwin's colleague, rushing by, almost 
over seats and down aisles, making his way to Wise. It 



176 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

might be to assail him ; but no, it was to grasp his hand, 
with tears streaming down his cheeks and exclaiming, 
*Let me grasp your hand; I don't agree with you; I 
don't approve your acts ; but I love you ; I love you.' " ^ 

Amid such hysterical scenes the ordinance of seces- 
sion was finally passed in secret session on April 17th, 
just after word had been received from the Governor 
that the President had called upon Virginia for her 
quota of volunteers. The vote was given as eighty- 
eight to fifty-five. Of the Trans-AUeghany delegates 
eleven went with the majority of the convention in favor 
of the ordinance, and five others later changed their 
votes to the affirmative. To put it another way, the 
representatives of twenty-one counties in what is now 
West Virginia cast their lot with the South; while the 
delegates from nineteen other western counties remained 
firm to the last in their support of the Union cause. ^ 
Twenty-two eastern delegates, including President Jan- 
ney, voted against the ordinance; all but one later 
obtained permission to change their vote to the af- 
firmative. 

It is a peculiar fact that the Valley of Virginia 
which was destined to suffer the most terrible ravages 
of war, by the action of its representatives in this con- 
vention was ranged on the side of the Union; while 
across the mountains in W^est Virginia a majority of 

*The account of this remarkable scene is found in Wise's 
"Life of Henry A. Wise," beginning on p. 274. 

* These nineteen counties, however, represented the greater part 
of the population and wealth of western Virginia. 



THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 177 

those counties which Congress later recognized as 
Union counties were placed by their representatives ,in 
the convention in the secession column. 

After the passage of the ordinance events moved 
fast.^ One hundred thousand dollars was appropriated 
for the defense of the state. An act was passed sus- 
pending the authority of the Federal Government until 
the ratification of the secession ordinance. Another 
act authorized the Governor to inform the President 
of the Confederate States of Virginia's desire to enter 
the Confederacy.^ A proclamation was issued ordering 
all volunteer companies in the state to prepare for im- 
mediate action. Harper's Ferry was seized; the chan- 
nel of Elizabeth River was obstructed and many other 
steps toward the actual commencement of hostilities 
were taken. The state authorities were severely criti- 
cized for doing these things before the people of the 
state had ratified the ordinance of secession; but it is 
difficult to see how Virginia could have marked time for 
a month, while events of such tremendous significance 
were in progress. The feeling was general that the sub- 
mission of the ordinance to the people was a mere for- 
mality.^ At any rate, when the day should come for 
the vote of the people the state would be engaged in 



^ The ordinance was entitled, "An Act to repeal the ratifica- 
tion of the Constitution of the United States of America by 
the State of Virginia and to resume all the rights and powers 
granted under the said Constitution." — Journal, Ordinance No. 1. 

^ Ibid., pp. 4-5. 

^ Two papers with such divergent views as the Richmond 
Enquirer and the Wheeling Intelligencer agreed on this point. 



178 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

war and it mattered little whether they approved or 
rejected the ordinance. -"^ 

The convention passed a resolution providing that an 
address to the people of Virginia should be drawn up 
setting forth the reasons why they should ratify the 
ordinance of secession. Jubal A. Early gathered 
around him a few remnants of the old Union party and 
fought desperately to have the resolution tabled, urg- 
ing that it was not proper for the convention to pre- 
sume to tell the people how they should act. This 
failing, he made a motion that the soldiers in camp 
should not be permitted to vote. But the convention 
was not going to run any risk of having the ordinance 
rejected, so all conservative proposals were turned 
down. 

April 25th the convention ratified a temporary agree- 
ment which had been made with Alexander Stephens, 
Commissioner of the Confederate States. The next step 
was the adoption of the Constitution of the Confederate 
States. April 29th the convention appointed a com- 
mission consisting of Messrs. Hunter, Rives, Brocken- 
brough. Staples, Camden, and Russell to proceed to 

^ Thus Mr. Botts says : "Notwithstanding that the people had 
decided by a majority of 56,000 to make this a convention of 
limited powers . . . the authorities . . . proceeded next day after 
the passage of the ordinance by the convention to involve the 
state of Virginia in actual war with the United States. . . . 
They then turned to the people . . . and said, 'Now we are in- 
volved in war and the rejection of the ordinance . . . will not 
stop the progress of the war; so you can vote for the ordinance 
or against it as you like. But, in the language of the Emperor 
Napoleon's friends, 'We advise you to vote for the Emperor.' " — 
Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, p. 114 et seq. 



THE VIRGINIA CONTENTION OF 1861 179 

Montgomery and act as delegates from Virginia to the 
Confederacy. 

Wednesday, May 1st, the convention adjourned. 

The question is often asked. What were the immedi- 
ate causes which threw Virginia into the arms of the 
Confederacy? The usual reply has been, the news of 
the fall of Fort Sumter and the receipt of Lincoln's 
call for volunteers. The older idea was that the con- 
vention stampeded when the telegrams from Charleston 
were read. But General Imboden declares that it was 
common knowledge that the telegrams had been sent for 
effect and soon became objects of derision. As soon as 
it was announced that one had been received the cry 
would go up, "Another Democratic alarm," and the 
reading of it would be greeted with laughter." ^ Thus 
the promise of Roger A. Pryor that Virginia would 
secede when the first gun was fired failed of fulfillment.^ 
But from the moment it became plain that Lincoln 
intended to use the military forces of the United States 
in his effort to bring the seceded states back into the 
Union and expected Virginia to contribute her quota, 
the future course of the state was decided. No one 
who is in any degree familiar with the situation will 

*Wise, "Life of Henry A. Wise," p. 277. 

Mt was alleged that Pryor had been sent south for the pur- 
pose of hastening the attack upon Fort Sumter and some of his 
speeches sound as though the charge were true. For instance, at 
Charleston on April lOth he said: "I do not mean to say any- 
thing for effect upon military operations, but the very moment 
that blood is shed Old Virginia will make common cause with 
her sisters of the South." — Pittsburgh Chronicle, April 11th, 
Christian Advocate, April 12th. 



180 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

affirm now that Virginia could have been held in the 
Union while her sister-states of the South were engaged 
in a desperate struggle with the North. 

On May 23rd the ordinance of secession was ratified 
by the people of the state by the decisive vote of 125,- 
950 to 20,373.-^ The viva voce method of voting made 
intimidation easy and there seems to be no doubt that 
many persons voted for the ordinance under pressure.^ 
But we cannot believe that the number was large enough 
to have had any effect on the final result. In the north- 
ern Panhandle, where the fear of war was so strong, it 
was not safe to vote for the ordinance just as in other 
parts of the state it required some courage to vote 
against it.^ The four counties of the northern Pan- 
handle voted against ratification twenty to one. The 

* No oflBcial canvass of the vote was ever made and consider- 
able doubt has been cast on the correctness of the returns as 
announced by Governor Letcher. The National Intelligencer 
accused him of concealing the returns from the thirty-four 
northwestern counties, in order that it might not become known 
how strongly these counties were opposed to secession. 

='Mr. C. D. Gray, testifying before the Joint Committee on 
Reconstruction, declared that he had been compelled to vote for 
the ordinance. Report, p. 64 

James Hunnicutt, Editor of the Christian Banner, in the con- 
vention of 1867 asserted that it was a matter of common knowl- 
edge that the vote taken May 23rd was a farce. Hundreds and 
thousands of armed men were sent around to tell every man 
that he could vote as he pleased; but if "you vote the Union 
ticket you are an abolitionist, a traitor to your state; you shall 
be tarred and feathered and driven out of the country or 
you shall be hung." — Journal of the Convention of 1867; p. 328. 

'Says the Wheeling Intelligencer, editorially. May 24th: 
"There was great curiosity to see who voted for secession. . . . 
As time went along there came in an occasional stray vote for 
the infamous ordinance. Nobody said much, but nearly everybody 
looked volti/mes." 



THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 181 

majority in Ohio County alone was 8,600.^ But in the 
other counties of western Virginia the vote was more 
evenly divided, while in the east the ordinance was rati- 
fied by overwhelming majorities. We are forced to the 
conclusion that by May 23, 1861, the people of Vir- 
ginia were ready for war; their hearts had been fired 
at last. 
^ "The Rending of Virginia," p. 285. 



CHAPTER X 

THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW-STATE MOVEMENT 

The passage of the ordinance of secession left the 
delegates from the northwest in a peculiarly embar- 
rassing position. While not the only ones who had 
voted against the ordinance, they alone represented 
districts where a real preponderance of Union senti- 
ment existed and they knew well that their constituents 
would visit their severest displeasure upon any man who 
should dare change his vote from the negative to the 
affirmative and thereby put his stamp of approval upon 
an act which would surely expose the northwest to the 
ravages of an invading army.^ 

There remained but one alternative — to leave the 
convention and return home. This was only a degree 
less distasteful, for such an action could be interpreted 
but as the beginning of an open break between the sec- 
tions of the state, and for tliis they were not yet pre- 
pared. If they remained in the convention they would 
be regarded as members of a body whose deliberations 

^Leonard Hall of Wetzel County and Samuel Woods of Bar- 
bour County who had signed the ordinance of secession met 
with rough treatment on returning home and both went to Rich- 
mond, where they remained during the greater part of the war. 

182 



BEGINNING OF THE NEW-STATE MOVEMENT 183 

were all concerned with the breaking up of the Union. 
They knew that the convention was determined to leg- 
islate the state out of the Union and no power on earth 
could prevent it. The number of Union sympathizers 
was decreasing every day and the little handful of loyal 
delegates from the upper Ohio and Monongahela now 
stood almost alone. 

On the 19th of April John S. Carlile departed from 
Richmond. Standing out conspicuously as the leader 
of the Union men he had never wavered, like Mr. Willey 
and Mr. Summers, in his support of the cause. Threats 
against him had been made at various times ; one evening 
a mob had gone so far as to surround his boarding 
house and throw a halter over a limb of a tree.^ How- 
ever, no actual violence was offered to any of the dele- 
gates, and there is good reason for doubting some of 
the stories which reached the loyal sections of the state 
regarding the dangerous situation of the Union dele- 
gates. 

The day after Carlile's departure the remaining 
Unionists held a meeting at the Powhatan Hotel in the 
room of Sherrard Clemens. Here the state of West 
Virginia may be said to have had its birth, for the 
course was decided upon of returning to their homes 
across the mountains and calling for a convention, the 
ultimate object of which should be the formation of a 

* James C. McGrew, one of the loyal delegates, declares that 
Carlile was very reluctant to leave Richmond and his friends 
were compelled to escort him to the train. — Second Biennial Re- 
port, West Va. Archives and History, p. 159. "The Rending of 
Virginia," p. 528. 



184 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

new state out of the loyal counties. ■'^ In accordance 
with this plan the Union delegates, with the permission 
of Governor Letcher, left Richmond April 21st. By the 
24th most of the delegates were back among their con- 
stituents, urging them to take immediate action against 
the scheme of the Secessionist leaders. Though bound 
by oath not to reveal the fact that the secession ordi- 
nance had been passed, they disregarded their promise 
and long before the fact was formally announced that 
their state had broken with the Federal Government the 
western Virginians knew that so far as the convention 
could accomplish it, Virginia was now a sovereign state. 
The danger was felt to be imminent, for it was a matter 
of common knowledge that the state authorities could 
not afford to remain idle until the people had time to 
pass upon the ordinance of secession.^ Richmond had 
already become the scene of war preparations, and it 
would be but a short time before the entire state was 
involved. The eastern portion of the state was already 
engaged in actual rebellion but it seemed quite likely 
that the west, which had taken no hostile steps, would be 
the first section to suffer and the people here were not 

^ Those present at this meeting were Messrs. Burley, Clemens, 
Dent, E. B. Hall, Hubbard, Jackson, McGrew, Patrick, C. J. 
Stewart, Porter, Tarr, and one or two others not named. — 2nd 
Biennial Report, West Va. Archives and History, p. 159. 

^The Cincinnati Commercial, April 23rd, made a bitter attack 
upon the Virginia authorities for not waiting until the ratifica- 
tion of the ordinance by the people before taking action. "Vir- 
ginia has not legally seceded. Her people have not passed upon 
the act of secession. A mob in Virginia is making war upon 
the Federal Government." 



BEGINNING OF THE NEW-STATE MOVEMENT 185 

willing thus to be offered up vicariously.^ They rea- 
lized that their position was a most unenviable one. By 
preference they were in the Union, but by proclamation 
of the Governor they would be out of the Union. 
There was too much Pennsylvania north and too much 
Ohio west to make secession practicable even if they 
desired it.^ The Southern Confederacy, they felt, was 
formed to protect slavery, an institution in which west- 
ern Virginia had little material interest. To be expected 
to offer up their lives and their fortunes for the sake 
of an institution in which they had little concern was 
demanding too much.^ 

Union meetings were held in all portions of the 
northwest. The people of Monongalia County re- 
solved, first, that to obey the behests of the state au- 
thorities and take part in the secession movement would 
result in the utter ruin and bankruptcy of the state; 
second, that the idea of seceding from the general gov- 
ernment and attaching Virginia to the so-called cotton 
states was repulsive, especially as it was necessary to 
follow in the wake of South Carolina, "the hotbed of 
political heresies and secession" ; third, that West Vir- 
ginia had submitted to the domineering rule of the east 
for over half a century, had been denied equal repre- 

^ Kingwood Chronicle, April 27th. Quoted in National Intel- 
ligencer, May 2. 

^Letter to the Pittsburgh Chronicle signed by a citizen of 
Wheeling, April 29th. 

* The Western Virginian, April 22nd. The citizens of Taylor 
and Wetzel counties resolved in mass meetings that West Vir- 
ginia had no interest in common with the government estab- 
Ushed for the sole purpose of protecting African slavery. 



186 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

sentation while the east had refused to bear her share 
of the burdens of taxation ; fourth, that now the mea- 
sure of eastern oppression was full and since secession 
had been determined upon the time was at hand for 
West Virginia to dissolve her civil and political con- 
nection with the east and remain under the protection 
of the Federal Government.-^ This was the tenor of 
nearly all the Union meetings. Separation from the 
state was usually hinted at rather than openly advo- 
cated. The action of the Washington authorities call- 
ing out troops for the purpose of subjugating the se- 
ceded states was freely criticized. An editor of one of 
the western papers supporting the Union wrote that 
he had traveled all over western Virginia, and while the 
people generally did not see any reason for Virginia's 
secession, at the same time they were far from approv- 
ing Lincoln's course.^ On several occasions their dis- 
approval broke out in Union meetings, although the 
fact was not generally known.^ 

The movement for a loyal convention to be called at 
Wheeling had its inception in a meeting held at Clarks- 
burg April 22nd. Under the leadership of Carlile a 
declaration was adopted to the effect that the loyal 

^National Intelligencer, April 24th. 

^ Western Virginian, April 22nd. 

•The Parkersburg Gazette, April 25th, declared that "the 
people of northwestern Virginia, heretofore honest Union men, 
after the exposure of the treachery of Lincoln will indignantly 
repudiate Unionism. No people are more patriotic than ours 
but when "Black Repubhcanism looks for encouragement and 
support in its crusade against the South it will look in vain in 
West Virginia." 



BEGINNING OF THE NEW-STATE MOVEMENT 187 

citizens of West Virginia should come together for the 
purpose of securing their position In the Union. 
Wheeling was recommended as the best place to meet, 
not because of its geographical position but for the rea- 
son that it was the only town where there was an as- 
sured Union majority. Had Parkersburg, Clarksburg, 
Morgantown, or Fairmont been anything like as loyal 
as they have usually been considered, one of them would 
have been chosen as the meeting-place and the state 
of West Virginia could never have had Its birth in 
Wheeling. Thus the history of West Virginia from 
1861 to 1865 appears properly as a part of the history 
of the city of Wheeling. Here was published the one 
paper which took up the anti-slavery cause, which con- 
sistently urged the division of the state, and supported 
unwaveringly the Republican administration in its ef- 
forts to put down the rebellion.^ In Wheeling there was 
a large group of prominent men willing to take upon 
themselves the uncertain task of setting up a new state 
government. With local, state, and national officials 
generally favorable to the Union, with nearly one third 
of its population foreign-born and altogether out of 
sympathy with the Southern cause, and with its prox- 

*The Intelligencer. Archibald Campbell, the editor, was an 
uncompromising Union man, whose courage was commensurate 
with his ability. His writings received wide notice outside of 
the state, and to this fact may be ascribed the failure of many 
northern journals to appreciate the real situation in West Vir- 
ginia. Mr. Campbell's zeal for the Union outran his judgment, 
and his optimistic editorials were copied far and wide, producing 
an entirely false impression as to the sentiment in the counties 
of West Virginia. 



188 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGrNTIA 

imity to Ohio and Pennsylvania, Wheeling logically 
became the soul of the new state movement. As such it 
was recognized throughout the North and the new gov- 
ernment was commonly spoken of as the Wheeling gov- 
ernment.^ 

The formal call for a convention appeared in the 
Intelligencer on April 27th. It was a long and stirring 
appeal for the citizens of the northwest to take some 
action before the Federal Government made the mis- 
take of considering Virginia as a unit in desiring sep- 
aration from the United States. The article reviewed 
the history of events since the calling of the special ses- 
sion of the legislature in January. It professed to see 
a deep-laid plot on the part of the eastern leaders be- 
ginning before the legislature met and not ending until 
the ordinance of secession was passed. Western inter- 
ests were not considered in the slightest degree. What 
did the east care if the Trans-Alleghany became the 
Flanders of the war.'' West Virginia had always been 
a feudal possession of eastern Virginia, and would now 
continue her usefulness to the east by acting as a buffer 
to ward oif attacks on the cismontane portion of the 
state. The secession ordinance had been passed secretly 
and the lips of the delegates had been sealed in order to 
give the state authorities time to take possession of the 
United States arsenals, navy yards, etc. 

*The counties outside the Panhandle recognized the primacy 
of Wheeling only as a matter of expediency. They had not 
forgotten that in various state conventions the delegates from 
Ohio County had opposed such internal improvements as had for 
their object the opening up of the central sections of the state. 



BEGINNING OF THE NEW-STATE MOVEMENT 189 

"Men of the northwest, this is where Virginia stands 
to-day ; this is how you stand ; this has been your treat- 
ment; these the indignities you have suffered. Will 
you submit to a repetition of them? Will you consent 
and are you willing to have them doubled, quadrupled, 
carried beyond all power of endurance ? Are you a free 
people and would you retain your liberties? Are you 
agreed that the degradation, wrongs, and insults of the 
last few months shall be continued, repeated, and inten- 
sified by a petty but most absolute tyranny for all time 
to come? Your position, if you have the nerve to sus- 
tain it, is one of moral sublimity. . . . We conjure you 
as free men who must secure their own enfranchisement, 
by all that you hold dear ... by your duty as a citi- 
zen of the best government on earth . . . that you will 
forget past differences . . . and unite in this hour 
of common danger." ^ 

The various state newspapers were urged to take up 
the call and scatter the appeal throughout the length 
and breadth of northwestern Virginia. The response 
was satisfactory in the Union counties.^ In two thirds 
of the counties now constituting the state of West Vir- 
ginia the press and the people held sullenly aloof from 
the movement and at no time showed a desire to act in 
unison with those who were trying to create a new state. 

Just how spontaneous the Union sentiment was can 

* Wheeling Intelligencer, April 27th. 

*A letter to the National Intelligencer, April 25th, says: 
"There are many counties of West Virginia where the Union 
feeling is predominant. Wheeling will not respond to the Gov- 
ernor's call but stands by the government of the United States. 
The press of Hancock, Brooke, Ohio, Marshall, Wood, Monon- 
galia and other northwestern counties still keep the Union flag 
flying." — Also Philadelphia Press, April 25th. 



190 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

never be determined. Some of the letters and articles 
circulating at this time have rather a hollow ring, their 
authors evidently being under the necessity of whistling 
in order to keep up their courage. The readers of the 
National Intelligencer were told that there were not 
one hundred Secessionists in Monongalia County, but 
almost in the same breath fear is expressed that the 
apathy of the people will be as difficult to overcome as 
active opposition. 

Interest in the new state movement centered around 
six towns — Wheeling, Morgantown, Fairmont, Grafton, 
Parkersburg, and Clarksburg. Morgantown was the 
home of Waitman T. Willey and was reputed to be 
strongly in favor of going to the extreme.^ Fairmont, 
in Marion County, should have been second only to 
Wheeling in its support of the Union because of its 
situation on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, but it 
was openly admitted that active Secessionist feeling 
was plentiful and Union sentiment scarce. Grafton, in 
Taylor County, was in the position of Fairmont. 
Parkersburg, the county seat of Wood County, and the 
second largest city in West Virginia, seems to have 

* The Morgantown Star at this time declared that after '*mature 
and painful deliberation ... it had come to the conclusion that 
the one thing left to do was to set up a separate and independent 
state. And why not divide the state? Should not the people of a 
state be homogeneous people, a people with like interests and 
institutions and requiring the same laws? What interest have 
we in eastern Virginia? . . . All our trade is with Pennsylvania, 
Ohio, and Maryland. . . . When we talk about dividing the 
state they cry out, 'Remember the graves of Washington, the 
shades of Monticello.' These . . . neither buy bread nor improve 
the country." 



BEGINNING OF THE NEW-STATE MOVEMENT 191 

contained a Union majority. Judge Jackson, the most 
prominent citizen and one of the leading Unionists in the 
Richmond Convention, was prepared to encourage any 
steps leading to the establishment of a provisional gov- 
ernment, but did not favor breaking away from the old 
state. Clarksburg, in Harrison County, was the home 
of John S. Carlile, who was able to draw over with him 
a number of the best citizens, but around the outlying 
districts Southern sympathizers were in force. Union 
men complained that they were being subjected to all 
kinds of annoyance by their disloyal neighbors. One 
man writes that he hopes the report is true that a com- 
pany of Secessionists was being raised in his district, 
for the county would then be relieved of "a large amount 
of the ofFscouring of humanity." ^ 
* "The Rending of Virginia," pp. 218-19. 



CHAPTER XI 

THE MAY CONVENTION 

The delegates to the first Wheeling Convention were 
chosen in such an irregular manner that a description 
of the methods is impossible. In the larger towns in- 
formal mass meetings were held and representatives 
elected. The rural districts, where three fourths of the 
people resided, had no opportunity to take part in 
the movement and many indeed were unaware that any 
organized effort was being made to neutralize the effect 
of the ordinance of secession. Since the convention was 
not called by any authority recognized by the state 
constitution, each county was a law unto itself. The 
feeling prevailed that the more delegates there were 
present the more impressive would be the effect, not so 
much in West Virginia as throughout the North. Thus 
the four hundred and twenty-nine men who assembled in 
Wheeling May 13, 1861, made an effective appearance 
and deceived the newspaper correspondents as to the 
real situation in the interior of the state. The counties 
represented were as follows : Hancock, Brooke, Ohio, 
Marshall, Marion, Monongalia, Preston, Harrison, 
Wood, Ritchie, Lewis, Upshur, Gilmer, Wirt, Jackson, 
Mason, Wetzel, Pleasants, Barbour, Hampshire, Berke- 

192 



THE MAY CONVENTION 193 

ley, Taylor, Tyler, Doddridge, and Roane. A closer 
analysis shows that more than one third of the total 
number of delegates were from the district immediately 
around Wheeling. Hancock County with a total popu- 
lation of 4,445 was represented by thirty-two dele- 
gates ; Brooke County, scarcely larger than Hancock, 
sent sixteen; Marshall County with a population of 
12,997 sent seventy men as her quota. The farther 
the county was away from Wheeling, the fewer the dele- 
gates, with few exceptions. Thirty men came from 
Mason County, yet Cabell County just below was not 
represented. Marion County, connected with Wheel- 
ing by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, was satisfied 
with sixteen delegates while her neighbor, Monongalia, 
had thirty-eight. From the eastern Panhandle came 
eight representatives. Jefferson, Morgan, Hardy, 
Pendleton, Randolph, Tucker, Webster, Pocahontas, 
Greenbrier, Nicholas, Fayette, Monroe, Mercer, Mc- 
Dowell, Wyoming, Raleigh, Boone, Logan, Kanawha, 
Putnam, Clay, Braxton, Calhoun, Wayne, Gilmer, and 
Cabell counties sent no delegates. 

From the first day of the first loyal convention to 
the final act of admission of West Virginia into the 
Union the leaders of the movement racked their brains 
in the attempt to justify their proceedings and make 
them harmonize with the constitutions of the state and 
the United States.^ It was asserted that the May 

^Carlile declared that all parliamentary customs should be 
followed out to the last detail, because it was essential that the 
regularity of their proceedings be recognized all over the land. — 
"The Rending of Virginia," p. 238. 



194 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

convention was a regular body organized under the 
Virginia constitution, although it was recognized to 
be a fact that only the General Assembly could sum- 
mon the people to meet in convention. In discussing 
this point, Judge Jackson, whose frankness is rather 
refreshing, made a motion that any man present from 
any northwestern county be received as a delegate. He 
stated that he did not believe their gathering was any- 
thing more than a large and imposing mass meeting, 
called irregularly and informally for the purpose of 
consulting the United States authorities as to the best 
means of procedure.^ Carlile, always theatrical, re- 
plied that the convention was a sovereign body and as 
such could do anything the sovereign people could do. 
Jackson had expressed the opinion that they had come 
together to deliberate, not to form a new state. To this 
Carlile replied that if he had so understood the pur- 
pose of the meeting he would have stayed at home. 
The people, he said, expected them to remain in session 
until their safety was secured beyond a doubt; but "if 
we temporize now and consult and adjourn to come 
back here again, before that day arrives you will have 
sworn allegiance to the rattlesnake flag." ^ 

To make their deliberations appear more regular a 
committee on credentials was appointed. On the after- 
noon of the first day the final organization was eff'ected 

^ Wheeling Intelligencer, May 14th. 

^ Ibid. This admission of the wavering sentiment of the people 
is illuminating. It is only occasionally (and then always inad- 
vertently) that the leaders of the movement reveal the true in- 
wardness of the situation. 



THE MAY CONVENTION 195 

with Dr. John Moss of Wood County as president. 
Before the meeting had progressed far, Judge Jack- 
son obtained the floor and spoke in favor of an ad- 
journment until a more thorough canvass of the coun- 
ties could be made. He did not believe that the con- 
vention represented the people of the northwest and, 
if it acted at all, would act without their consent. The 
interior counties, said he, had not shown the slightest 
desire or inclination to enter into the movement. Talk 
of a separation of the state was premature. Carlile 
answered that only prompt action could save them now. 
The Federal Government should be called upon for aid, 
which would be furnished only if their measures were 
decisive. "Let us repudiate these monstrous usurpa- 
tions; let us show our loyalty to Virginia and the 
Union; and let us maintain ourselves in the Union at 
every hazard. It is useless to cry peace when there is 
no peace." '^ Mr. Willey, whose lukewarmness was al- 
ready apparent, supported Jackson's position at this 
time, and attacked Carlile's radical program. The 
next day, however, he retracted most of what he had 
said.^ 

May 14th Mr. Wheat, of Ohio County, introduced a 
series of resolutions to the effect first, that the ordi- 
nance of secession was null and void; second, that the 
prohibition of the election of representatives to Con- 
gress was a usurpation of power ; ^ third, that the 

^ Wheeling Intelligencer, May 14th. 

'^Willey's trimming propensities detracted greatly from the 
reputation which his natural gifts would have won for him. 
^ The ordinance of secession provided that the election for 



196 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

action putting the military power of the state in the 
hands of the seceding states was a violation of the con- 
stitution; fourth, that all citizens were urged to vote 
against the ordinance of secession. Carlile, who ob- 
jected on principle to all resolutions but his own, came 
forward with a proposition to sever at once the tenth 
and eleventh congressional districts, with the addition 
of Wayne County, from the rest of Virginia and to 
form a free and independent state in the Union. He 
would have a committee appointed to draw up a con- 
stitution for the new state which should be called 
New Virginia. A storm of protest arose. Mr. Wheat 
protested that Carlile was going too fast even for him, 
while Jackson declared that if any such proposition 
was given serious consideration he would go home and 
take the whole Wood County delegation with him. Car- 
lile denied that the action proposed was either hasty 
or revolutionary, but asserted that it was the only 
alternative left if the people declined to abide by the 
action of the Richmond Convention. The United States 
Constitution was also the constitution of Virginia ; it 
was still the supreme law of the land; it provided for 
the separation of a state and the erection of a 
new state. The method that he proposed was constitu- 
tional. 

The next day debate was resumed and again Willey 
revealed his unfitness to be regarded as a strong Union 

members of Congress usually held on the fourth Thursday of 
May was suspended and prohibited until further notice. — Laws 
of Virginia, 1861-62, Appendix, p. 33. 



THE MAY CONVENTION 197 

man by characterizing the plan of procedure proposed 
by Carlile as "treason against the state government, 
the government of the United States and the govern- 
ment of the Confederate States of America.'' ^ It is 
surprising that the members of the convention did not 
rise en masse to repudiate the idea that there could 
be any such thing as treason to the Confederate states. 
If the Confederacy had a legal existence, the Wheeling 
Convention and government certainly did not have, for 
the latter was founded on the assumption that states 
could not legally secede from the Union. Grant that 
Virginia's action in uniting with the Southern Con- 
federacy was legal, and the whole movement in the, 
northwest must be considered as absolutely without 
legal justification. 

For some reason that is not now clear it was sug- 
gested that the convention go into secret session. F. H. 
Pierpoint, afterward Governor, spoke of attempts being 
made to exercise pressure over the delegates and pre- 
vent free speech. Now Pierpoint was a "new state 
man" from the first; any demonstration from the 
spectators to which Pierpoint would object must have 
expressed disapproval of what the convention was doing 
— something we should not expect to find in Wheeling 
where, according to the newspaper correspondents, the 
people were loyal to a man. The delegates voted to re- 
main in open session. Carlile modified his original prop- 
osition to provide for the calling of a convention in 

» Granville Hall, "The Rending of Virginia," p. 262. 



198 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

June, in the event of the ratification of the ordinance 
of secession.^ 

On the evening of the third day the committee on 
Federal Relations made its report. It declared first, 
that the ordinance of secession was null and void; 
second, that the prohibition of the regular congres- 
sional election was a usurpation of power. All citizens 
were urged to act as though the Richmond Convention 
had never met and in case the ordinance was ratified 
the people were requested to send delegates to another 
convention to be held on June 11th; each county was 
to be entitled to twice as many delegates as it had 
representatives in the House of Delegates. The recom- 
mendation was made that the senatorial delegates to 
be chosen at the regular time in May be given seats as 
delegates in the convention. No justification can be 
found for this provision, which was absolutely without 
precedent and whose only merit was that of assuring 
a certain number of members in the next convention. 
The report expressed the hope that the state authori- 
ties could be brought to see that their course was 
utterly subversive of the interests of West Virginia and 
could be induced to agree to a division of the state. 
The public authorities were assured that the people 
would do their utmost to preserve peace but it was 



^ Carlile admitted that in most of the counties of western 
Virginia the Secessionists held the balance of power and over- 
awed the Union men. He declared that if the convention con- 
tented itself with paper resolves "there would not be a county 
in the state which would not give a majority for the ordinance of 
secession." — Pittsburgh Chronicle, May 15th. 



THE MAY CONVENTION 199 

urged that no Confederate troops be sent into the 
region of the northwest. A Central Committee should 
be appointed to act until June. 

The report was adopted with but two dissenting 
votes ; the committee was appointed and the convention 
adjourned.^ 

The first Wheeling Convention had attracted a great 
deal of attention all over the country, as is shown by 
the fact that a number of the great metropolitan news- 
papers sent special correspondents.^ Their reports 
are conflicting and confusing. On one point they were 
all agreed and that was, the Union sentiment in West 
Virginia had been greatly exaggerated. When the 
northern counties first exhibited an unwillingness to 
follow the Secessionist flag by calling the loyal conven- 
tion at Wheeling, the tone of the Northern press was 
one of sympathy. The New York World predicted 
great results from it ; the New York Herald congratu- 
lated the western Virginians on their loyalty; the New 
York Times asserted that with one half of Virginia 
gravitating by kindred attraction to the North, a terri- 
tory equal in area to a first-class state was thrown 
off" by the mere force of repulsion. The Philadelphia 
Press carried a long letter on the subject signed 

*The committee consisted of Messrs. Carlile, Wheat, Pier- 
point, Carr, Latham, Wilson, Woodward and Paxton, Four 
of these men lived in Wheeling. The committee was certainly 
not "central" in the sense that it represented the loyal counties. 

* Among these were representatives of the New York Herald, 
the New York Times, Cincinnati Commercial, Cincinnati Gazette, 
Pittsburgh Chronicle, Pittsburgh Dispatch, Cleveland Leader, 
Chicago Press and Tribune. 



200 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

X. Y. Z., calling attention to the unusual geographical 
features of Virginia; how the northwest was naturally 
separated from the east. Here was a people neither 
blest nor cursed with wealth or slavery ; whose lands 
were now so fertile as to absolve them from the need of 
working with their own hands ; whose mountain life 
had filled them with an intense love of liberty. These 
were the people who should be aided in their attempt 
to remain faithful to the Union. ^ The Cincinnati 
Gazette pledged the state of Ohio to the support of 
West Virginia. The New York Post and Chicago 
Press urged the people to act with decision, being as- 
sured that the Federal Government would back up their 
efforts. The New York Times asked if Virginia would 
try to coerce the rebellious section." In such an event 
the West Virginians need but ask and an army would 
be sent down which would drive every Secessionist be- 
yond the Alleghanies and "a new Virginia bright and 
fresh as the morning star will rise among the mountains 
of the west to shine with luster and glory for genera- 
tions to come in a constellation of the Union. The 
thirteenth of May will be the beginning of grief to 
the revolutionists of Richmond, for then will their 
kingdom be parted and a mangled remnant of a once 

* Philadelphia Press, May 12, 1861. 

^The Richmond Whig replied to this: "We are so entirely 
devoted to the great American principle that government should 
be by the consent of the governed that if the Panhandle should 
feel able and desirous to set up as an independent community 
it should have our vote. Acting upon this principle, if the peo* 
pie of the w^hole northwest sought to make a state of them- 
selves they should certainly meet vrith no opposition from this 
journal." Quoted in National Intelligencer, May 2, 1861. 



THE MAY CONVENTION 201 

proud state be all that will be left to them to carry 
their offering to the selfish hierarchs of Montgomery." ^ 
Possibly the best commentaries on the May conven- 
tion are to be found in the Pittsburgh Chronicle. Its 
correspondent reported on his first day spent in Wheel- 
ing that northwestern Virginia was as loyal to the 
Union as Pennsylvania herself, although the feeling 
predominated that the state should not be divided if 
it could be avoided. One very discouraging fact was 
noticeable — the people were not willing to enlist in 
the army.^ After remaining in Wheeling forty-eight 
hours the correspondent writes back that he was con- 
vinced that the Union element was far from being as 
strong as had been reported. There were a great many 
in Wheeling who were going to follow the state out 
of the Union, and while these people were not making 
any noise, their opposition to the Union cause was felt 
none the less plainly. Out of eleven militia companies 
in Wheeling the United States recruiting officer had 
been able to persuade only two to enlist and these re- 
fused to leave the city. In the convention itself the 
greatest difference of opinion could be observed. The 
advocates for the new state included a number of the 
most prominent men, but the vast majority of the dele- 
gates were opposed to the division of Virginia. The 
leaders could not agree on any course of action and 
the bitterest jealousies were cropping out every day.^ 

^ New York Times, May 10th. 
2 Pittsburgh Chronicle, May 15th. 

' In an article by H. J. Eckenrode entitled "The Political Recon- 
struction of Virginia," published in the Johns Hopkins University 



202 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

Northern people who were following the convention in 
the newspapers were being deceived, declared the writer 
from whom we have been quoting. They did not know 
that on the evening of the 13th of May a meeting of 
citizens and delegates was held where it was urged that 
West Virginia should stand neutral in the coming con- 
flict, as the North could not expect West Virginians to 
slaughter their Virginia brethren. With such feeling 
existing, remarks the correspondent, it could scarcely 
be the duty of the Federal Government to protect this 
section from the Secessionists, and unless there was a 
sudden change of heart the fate of West Virginia was 
sealed and the country would be overrun with Union 
troops.^ 

The adjournment of the convention without taking 
decisive measures to insure West Virginia's place in 
the Union was the source of much dissatisfaction in 
the North. The press supporting the administration 
agreed that a more disappointing gathering could 
scarcely have been held. Since not even a provisional 
government had been formed, Virginia would have to 
be considered a unit in carrying out its hostile program 
and West Virginia would suffer with the rest. It was 
a common criticism that a disproportionate amount of 

Studies, Vol. 22, pp. 295-414, the author states that the May 
convention adjourned because of dissatisfaction with the unequal 
method of representation employed, which was inadequate for 
the election of responsible men. This may possibly have con- 
tributed to the lack of a spirit of cooperation among the members, 
but there were many other and far more potent reasons for 
discontent. 
^ Pittsburgh Chronicle, May 16th. 



THE MAY CONTENTION 203 

time had been spent in making speeches ; even the most 
loyal of the delegates seemed to be willing to give little 
more than lip service to the Union cause. Moreover 
it was a rude shock to those who had been informed 
that the western Virginians were loyal to a man to 
discover that this loyalty was inspired by the fear of 
what would happen to them in case they acquiesced 
in the course of the state authorities at Richmond. 
There were many allusions to "hanging as the prob- 
able reward of exercising the bold resolve of recurring 
to their original rights and showing off an allegiancei 
to the state government." ^ 

There was a marked difference of opinion in the 
North as to the course which the western counties 
should pursue. Conservative papers agreed that the 
United States Constitution could not be stretched 
enough to allow a new state to be formed in Virginia. 
Besides, the loyalty of the west was far from assured, 
as the presence of Secessionists in the convention 
showed. The feeling which did exist in West Virginia 
favoring the division of the state was inspired not by 
love of the Union but by the remembrance of old sec- 
tional difficulties.^ The admission of a new state 

* New York Times, World, Cincinnati Commercial. 

2 The New York World, May 14, 1861, discussed the con- 
stitutional question at some length. "The Constitution of the 
United States Article 4 Section 4 expressly provides that no 
new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of 
any other state. The state legislature having affirmed the right 
of secession, might indeed be consistent enough to allow the 
western counties to cut loose, but the admission in the Constitu- 
tion of a right to divide a state or the exercise by the western 
counties of the privilege of secession to the North if conceded 



204 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

formed out of Virginia at this time would be a tacit 
recognition of the actual secession of the Southern 
states and this was exactly what the Lincoln govern- 
ment wished to avoid. So long as Virginia was offi- 
cially recognized as still being a state of the Federal 
Union, her legislature must be the only legislature that 
could be recognized under the Constitution. A legisla- 
tive body could not commit treason, although its mem- 
bers might. If the legislature of Virginia in session at 
Richmond could be induced to give its consent to the 
separation of the western counties, everything would 
be regular and constitutional. But until that very im- 
probable event occurred there was no way by which 
West Virginia could have anything but a provisional 
government of her own.^ 

to them would be an admission of the principle of secession. 
For the government to admit it now would be to admit both the 
principle and its ridiculous consequences; for if a state may 
secede why not part of a state? If part of a state, why not a 
county, city, or village? We do not suppose that a new state 
government will actually be erected in West Virginia and if not, 
the question of its recognition by Congress is of no practical 
consequence. The course of proceeding proper to be adopted 
by the Federal Government in case West Virginia should at- 
tempt to organize a state government does not involve the ques- 
tion of erecting a new state within the territorial limits of an- 
other state. During the pendency of the contest we should 
hold it by the laws of war as a conquest from the enemy and either 
govern it or permit it to govern itself as a territory. ... If 
the war terminates in the maintenance of the Union Virginia will 
retain her territorial limits unimpaired. If the rebellion should 
prevail, we might hold West Virginia as a conquest made during 
the war." 

^ Pittsburgh Gazette; Providence (R. I.) Journal. The Buf- 
falo Express dissented from this opinion and held that the only 
loyal legislature would be one composed of western members. 
This body could legally give its consent to the division of the 
state. The New York Herald agreed with this opinion. In his 



THE MAY CONVENTION 205 



charge to the Grand Jury at Wheeling, May 10th, Judge Thomp- 
son declared that "it would be . . . unseasonable and the most 
guilty ambition ... to permit . . . the division of the state by 
lawless insurrectionary movements; to break the constitution to 
save the constitution. . . . Whoever attempts and makes any 
overt acts toward establishing without authority of the state 
legislature any government within the limits of the state sepa- 
rate from the existing government, or shall hold or execute any 
office in such usurped government, or shall profess allegiance or 
fidelity to it, or shall resist the execution of the laws ... is. 
guilty of treason. No man can strike at the sovereignty of 
the state without striking at the welfare of and sovereignty of 
the Union." — Wheeling Intelligencer, May 11, 1861. 



CHAPTER XII 



THE JUNE CONVENTION 



From the adjournment of the May convention to 
the assembling of the convention in June the Central 
Committee engaged in a strenuous publicity campaign. 
Addresses, written by Carlile in his most fervid style, 
were scattered broadcast throughout the northwestern 
counties. It is significant to observe that the question 
of separation from Virginia was not even hinted at. 
The action of the Richmond Secessionists was de- 
nounced and the loyal people were urged to repudiate 
their treasonable proceedings. We seek in vain for 
any reference to the movement on foot looking toward 
the setting up of a new state. Carlile had evidently 
learned a lesson in the meeting which had just closed. 
Never again did he heartily espouse the cause. 

The months of May and June were stirring ones in 
western Virginia. Realizing that the region was de- 
batable ground, both the Northern and the Southern 
governments sent in troops. The Confederates were 
on the ground first, but their companies were composed 
for the most part of native Virginians. Grafton was 
held for several days by a Confederate force, while all 

206 



THE JUNE CONVENTION 207 

the country to the south was overrun by Southern 
troops. 

The contest over the occupation of West Virginia 
had scarcely begun when the day came around for the 
meeting of the June convention. On the afternoon of 
June 11th eighty-two men presented their credentials 
as members of the convention. Of these, twenty-five 
were entitled to seats as state Senators or members of 
the House of Delegates. Twenty-seven counties of 
West Virginia were represented — not a very good show- 
ing when the work of the Central Committee is. consid- 
ered. How the delegates were elected remains a mys- 
tery. The organization which provided for the elec- 
tion was of course an extra-legal one, and it is certain 
that in many cases not even the form of an election 
was gone through with. No one believes that the peo- 
ple of Alexandria or of Fairfax County held an open 
election for representatives to a Union convention. 
The documents submitted to the committee on creden- 
tials would make interesting reading if they could be 
found. Who conducted the election? In the extreme 
northwestern counties the county officials attested to 
the genuineness of the election, but we know that in the 
great majority of cases the local officers were the sup- 
porters of the regular state government, and would 
not countenance any revolutionary proceeding like the 
Wheeling conventions.^ It is not necessary for us at 

* There is abundant testimony in support of this. A number 
of speakers in the convention bore witness to the fact that the 
civil officials of the counties were Secessionists almost to a man. 
One representative from Randolph County declared that "before 



208 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

this day to condemn the irregularity of the proceed- 
ings which we have been discussing, but we must, never- 
theless, recognize the fact that they were irregular and 
had their justification in expediency alone. 

The course to be followed by the convention was not 
easily determined. It could organize a temporary 
government and call upon the United States authori- 
ties for protection, but the leaders feared that by so 
doing their plan of forming a new state w^ould receive 
a setback. Once a majority of the delegates were 
brought over to their side and the first steps toward a 
division of the state wxre taken, Congress would not 
dare refuse them admission and enough loyal people 
could be found to ratify the action. 

Advice was plentiful.^ The Boston Post warned the 
members that the North was opposed to any talk of a 
division of the state so long as the loyalty of the peo- 
ple in the proposed new state was in doubt. Their 
chief aim should be to keep Virginia in the Union if 
possible. The present situation, the leaders were re- 

the advance of the Union troops nearly every judge of our 
courts, nearly every prosecuting attorney, many of the justices 
of the peace, the majority of our sheriffs, many of the com- 
missioners of the revenue, and all classes and grades of civil 
officers had fled to Richmond." Mr. West of Wetzel County 
admitted that in his county, v^'here a majority of seven hundred 
had been given against the ordinance of secession, all the officers 
were Secessionists. 

^The general impression seemed to be that the convention 
would take no steps toward forming a new state. Even the 
Wheeling Intelligencer was opposed to it, declaring that too 
many counties were overrun by Secessionists. Another difficulty 
was the desire of the Federal Government to restore every state 
government to what it had been before the war broke out. 



THE JUNE CONVENTION 209 

minded, was like that existing in Virginia in 1775 when 
the Governor abdicated. Just as soon as a provisional 
government was established in West Virginia, the case 
would be the same as the one in Rhode Island in 1844 
when there were two governors. At that time Presi- 
dent Tyler recognized the minority government of King 
and the Supreme Court upheld this decision, declaring 
that the President of the United States had power to 
decide which government should be recognized. Conse- 
quently the President could use his discretion in the 
present situation. In this manner the state of Virginia 
might be kept in the Union by her own people. The 
New York World advised the convention to declare it- 
self the government of Virginia. No violence or sum- 
mary action would be necessary if this were done. 
While it was probable that Virginia would at some time 
be divided, such a course was not to be thought of 
now. 

The Wheeling Intelligencer outlined a plan which be- 
came the one adopted by the convention. All state 
offices were to be declared vacant and then filled with 
loyal men. The Federal authorities should be asked to 
recognize these new officers ; the convention should re- 
main in session for three or four weeks and the mem- 
bers be paid out of the funds belonging to the state.^ 

After the permanent organization of the convention 

was effected, with Arthur I. Boreman as President, 

^ On July 1st Pierpoint, who had been elected provisional gov- 
ernor, sent a company of soldiers to Weston to take possession 
of $30,000 of state money lying there in a bank. — Wheeling Intel- 
ligencer, July 3rd. 



210 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

Gibson L. Cranmer as Secretary, and Thomas Horn- 
brook as Sergeant-at-Arms, all members were required 
to take an oath to "support the Constitution of the 
United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof 
as the supreme law of the land, anything in the ordi- 
nances of the convention which assembled in Richmond 
on the 13th of February last to the contrary notwith- 
standing." ^ With the appointment of a business com- 
mittee the preliminary work was completed and the 
convention applied itself to the problems at hand. 

The first resolution offered, by Dr. Dorsey of Monon- 
galia County, was one committing the convention to 
a course which would culminate in the erection of a 
new state. Any county which gave the slightest indi- 
cation of a desire to join the movement was to be ad- 
mitted. The loyal legislature should be asked to give 
its consent, and this done, Congress was to be requested 
to admit this loyal group of counties as a new state in 
the Union. It was claimed that this mode of procedure 
was preferable to that of reconstructing the old state 
government, because it did not "impose upon them the 
calamity of an overburdened state debt, no part of 
which we owe in equity, or the scarcely less disastrous 
calamity of repudiating that debt and thus ruining 
the credit of the state." Just how the new state, if 
admitted, would be relieved of any obligation to pay 
her share of the state debt contracted when the state 
was undivided, does not seem clear. As a part of the 

^ Mr. Laidley of Cabell County refused to take the oath and 
left the convention. 



THE JUNE CONVENTION 211 

state of Virginia or as a separate state formed, as it 
could only be with the consent of Virginia, her liability 
was the same. The holders of the bonds were not in- 
terested in the question of how or where the money 
was spent. They had bought them in good faith and 
for their redemption trusted to the honor of Virginia.^ 
June 13th the business committee reported a "Dec- 
laration of the People of Virginia," which was made 
the order for the next day. It stated that when any 
form of government was found to be inadequate for 
the true purpose of government, it was the right and 
duty of the people to alter or abolish it. The Virginia 
Bill of Rights reserved this power to a majority of the 
people, which, said Carlile, was the sacred right of 
revolution. The scheme as outlined provided that the 

^The New York Commercial Advertiser, representing Wall 
Street holders of Virginia bonds, was very much concerned over 
the prospect of having Virginia bisected. Constitutionally the 
western counties had no right to secede and the people should 
not furnish Charleston and Richmond with an argument which 
might be employed with fatal effect against the Federal Govern- 
ment, Only two sevenths of the delegates were in favor of 
dividing the state, declares the Advertiser, basing this estimate 
upon a vote taken tabling a resolution that separation from 
Virginia was one of the leading objects of the convention. 

It was the general feeling that Wall Street was lobbying in 
Wheeling against the new state project. The Morgantown Star, 
July 1st, came out with the charge that the members of the 
Wheeling Convention had been unduly influenced by emissaries 
of the New York capitalists holding Virginia bonds. These 
bondholders knew that if the west broke away and repudiated 
the old debt, their bonds were worthless. 

To this the Wheeling Intelligencer replied, July 3rd: "The debt 
belongs geographically to both what is and what would have been 
Virginia, had we divided — and the people of no county or section 
could rid themselves of their liability for it any more than A 
could escape the incurred debts of the firm of A and B simply 
by withdrawing from the partnership." 



212 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

convention should declare all state offices vacant and 
then proceed to the reconstruction of the state. Dr. 
Dorsey took the floor against this plan and advocated 
calling together the loyal members of the legislature 
and asking them to give their consent to the division of 
the state. Both plans were revolutionary, the speaker 
declared, but this plan had the merit of directness 
while the other, if adopted, would give the opponents 
of the new state a chance to organize and check further 
action. As for the general government, it could recog- 
nize a provisional government no more easily than it 
could admit West Virginia as a state. Carlile, who was 
gradually turning away from the new state proposi- 
tion, suggested that the matter be hushed up for the 
present, because the New York capitalists might use 
their influence at Washington to obstruct the progress 
of the measure in Congress. "Two great objects," said 
Carlile, "influence and govern my actions. The first 
I am free to say — the dearest and nearest my heart — 
is the perpetuity of the Union." The Declaration was 
passed by unanimous vote.^ 

On the 18th a discussion was precipitated by Mr. 
Farnsworth of Upshur County, who desired that the 
convention inform the President and the Cabinet that 
it was the object of the convention to form a new state 
in the Union. Carlile and Dorsey, who had previously 
railed against the delegates for not taking radical 
action, now took the opposite ground and advised their 

^ Wheeling Intelligencer, June 14th. When this vote was taken 
there were only fifty-six delegates present. 



THE JUNE CONVENTION 213 

colleagues to proceed slowly. Dorsey had become con- 
vinced over night that the time was not ripe for a sepa- 
ration. Such a step would only embarrass the general 
government at a time when it had enough problems to 
face, declared Carlile. "If we could divide the state to- 
day who would do so under existing circumstances .^^ 
When we are trying now to resist this attempt at trans- 
ferring us to a rebellious government, shall we be dis- 
tracted with matters of secondary importance, as all 
must admit this question of separation to he at this 
hour?'' -^ A resolution was tabled by a vote of fifty to 
seventeen, and the subject of dividing Virginia was not 
discussed further in the June convention.^ 

On the 19th of June, 1861, just two years before 
West Virginia was formally admitted into the Union, 
the ordinance for the reorganization of the state gov- 
ernment was adopted by the unanimous vote of the 
seventy-six delegates present.^ It assumed to speak 



* Granville Hall, "The Rending of Virginia," p. 323. Com- 
pare this with Carlile's speech in the earlier convention: "It is 
represented that a proposition looking to a separate state gov- 
ernment is revolutionary. I deny it. It is the only legal, con- 
stitutional remedy left this people if they do not approve the 
action of the Virginia Convention. ... It is said we are not 
prepared for such action. When will we be better prepared? 
If this action be our constitutional right, who will dare to say 
that anywhere within the limits of this Union any man is au- 
thorized to resist such action? Who dare to say that this remedy 
can be exercised only by virtue of force? We will never be in 
a state of preparation if we are not now." — Wheeling Intelli- 
gencer, May 15th. 

""Ibid. 

'A proposition was rejected to make ineligible for office under 
the new government any person who had voted for the ratifica- 
tion of the ordinance of secession. 



214 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

for the people of Virginia ^ by whom, it was declared, 
the convention had been called.^ A Governor, Lieu- 
tenant Governor and Attorney General were to be ap- 
pointed by the convention, to continue in office for six 
months. At the end of that time the General Assembly 
should provide for a regular election. An Executive 
Council of five was to be chosen to consult with the 
Governor.^ The most important provision was that 
constituting a General Assembly consisting of the Sena- 
tors and delegates elected at the regular time in May, 
together with any who might be chosen under the ordi- 
nances of the convention. This body was to assemble 
in Wheeling July 1st and proceed to organize as pre- 
scribed by the existing laws. That the proceeding was 
altogether irregular is brought out clearly in the fol- 
lowing clause: ''A majority of the members of each 
branch thus qualified . . . shall be competent to pass 
any act specified in the twenty-seventh section of the 
fourth article of the constitution." (This section pro- 
vides for the creation or discharge of any state debt.) 
It is difficult to understand why any such authoriza- 
tion was necessary. If, as the convention assumed, 
the General Assembly thus constituted was the only 
legal legislative body of Virginia, why specify what 
powers it could exercise when such powers were clearly 

* The delegates represented approximately 200,000 people, about 
one-fifth of the white population of the state. 

^ The state constitution, which is still in force, vested the power 
of calling conventions in the General Assembly. 

^ The creation of such office was in disregard of the constitu- 
tion of 1851, which had abolished the Governor's Council. 



THE JUNE CONVENTION 215 

enumerated in the constitution of the state? How 
could the constitution of Virginia be acknowledged as 
the law of the state under one set of conditions and 
repudiated in another? Grant that West Virginia was 
exercising her right of revolution and the difficulty 
still remained. If the government of Virginia had been 
overturned, the makers of the new state must begin 
with a clean slate and construct a government from 
the ground up. The fact that the convention thought 
it essential specifically to authorize the assembly to 
create a state debt is a virtual admission of the weak- 
ness of its position. 

All county and state officers were to take the oath 
of allegiance to the United States Government. If 
any refused to do this the Governor should provide 
for a special election to fill the vacancy. Where no 
officers could be found to conduct the election, the 
Governor was given the power to make permanent ap- 
pointments.^ Acting under this ordinance, the con- 
vention proceeded to the election of officers which re- 
sulted as follows : Governor, F. H. Pierpoint ; Lieu- 
tenant Governor, Daniel Polsley ; Governor's Council, 
Messrs. Van Winkle, Harrison, Leasure, Lamb, and 
Paxton.^ 

On the 25th the convention adjourned to meet Au- 
gust 6th. A long address had been drawn up and was 
now sent throughout the state. In part it is important 

* A more arbitrary measure could scarcely have been conceived. 
^ On the following Saturday James S. Wheat was elected At- 
torney-General. 



216 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

enough to be repeated: "The delegates now assembled 
in convention at Wheeling deem it proper to address 
their fellow citizens throughout the commonwealth in 
explanation and vindication of the course they have 
unanimously felt it incumbent upon them to pursue." 
Then follows a review of the events in the Richmond 
Convention and the excitement of the ensuing weeks. 
"In this state of things the day arrived when the people 
were to vote for or against the secession ordinance. 
Threats of personal injury ... or other intimida- 
tions were used in every county in the state. Judges 
charged the Grand Juries that opposition to this Union 
would be punished as treason and the armed partisans 
of the conspirators arrested, plundered, and exiled 
peaceable citizens for no other crime than their adher- 
ence to the Union." The question of the May and 
June conventions was discussed and it was asserted 
that while the first gathering was irregular the June 
convention was legal. ^ "The number of counties repre- 
sented is thirty-four and we have assurance that sev- 
eral which are now with us in spirit will ere long be 
present by their regularly appointed delegates. Sev- 
eral of the delegates present escaped from their coun- 
ties at the risk of their lives while others are still de- 
tained at home by force or menace.^ Two courses of 

^ It would seem that since the second convention had been 
called together by the first, they would be equally irregular. 

^ If the counties where such things occurred were so strongly 
in sympathy with the Southern cause, they did not deserve to 
take part in the Wheeling movement. In no sense of the word 
could the delegates from these counties be said to represent the 
counties at all, since the people were opposed to the convention. 



THE JUNE CONVENTION 217 

action were presented. . . . The first was the imme- 
diate separation of the western or northwestern counties 
from the residue of the state. This was the result 
rather of a previous and growing conviction . . . that 
diversity, almost opposition of interests, different di- 
rections of the channels of trade, and the want of legis- 
lation adapted to their needs rendered the separation 
desirable under any and all circumstances." It is con- 
fessed that the state of war prevented the exact ful- 
fillment of constitutional requirements, but precedents 
existed for the assumption by the people of those powers 
entrusted to the state officers and now surrendered by 
them. The members of this convention "have in the 
name and behalf of the good people of Virginia issued 
their declaration that the preservation of their dearest 
rights and liberties and their security in person and 
property demand the organization of the government 
of the commonwealth." The process of reconstruction 
was described and the promise made to assume their 
share of the state debt. All loyal citizens should arm 
themselves against the Richmond conspirators : 

"The reorganized government appeals to the great 
body of people for support in this hour of anxiety and 
trial. . . . Your own experience has taught you the 
great benefits of the Union and you recognize the prin- 
ciple that a government so beneficial in its operations 
should not be changed for light or transient causes. 
Persevere then in your most holy war against the cor- 
rupt oligarchy who have usurped your government." ^ 

^The address is printed in full in the National Intelligencer, 
July 26, 1861. 



218 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

The June convention cleared the ground for the erec- 
tion of the new state. Just what proportion of its 
members were opposed to the disruption of Virginia 
cannot be determined. That they were inchned to more 
radical actions than the delegates in the May conven- 
tion is undoubted, although Carlile's defection was a 
serious loss. The ultra-conservatives of the first 
gathering, men like Willey and Jackson, were not pres- 
ent in the June convention and they had no prominent 
successors. The moderate course pursued was directed 
by motives of policy and not from a conviction that 
the separation from Virginia was undesirable. Many 
people were deceived into believing that all thought of 
breaking away from the east had been given up.^ This 
was far from being the truth for, as a matter of fact, 
the ruling clique had laid out a definite plan of cam- 
paign. The precipitant course so strongly urged by 
Carlile in the first convention and by Dorsey in the 
second convention was not taken up because it was 
felt that to pursue openly a plan of this kind would 
only serve to arouse the opponents of the new state in 
Wall Street, in Congress, and in the state itself. The 
oligarchical nature of the new provisional government 
made it possible for the leaders to carry on their work 
with the utmost secrecy, and the absolute indifference 
of the northwestern counties to what the Pierpoint 
government was doing made it easy for the self-ap- 

^The Pittsburgh Chronicle, June 10th, stated that it had re- 
ceived reliable information to the effect that the idea of dividing 
Virginia had been abandoned. 



THE JUNE CONVENTION 219 

pointed officials to remain in undisputed possession 
of the government.^ 

On July 2, 1861, there assembled in Wheeling a non- 
descript body calling itself the legislature of Virginia. 
No record of its proceedings has ever come to light 
and only the vaguest information is obtainable regard- 
ing its actions. According to the laws of Virginia, elec- 
tions for Senators and delegates to the General As- 
sembly were to occur on the fourth Thursday of May 
every second year. The ordinance passed by the Rich- 
mond Convention April 17, 1861, while forbidding the 
election of representatives to Congress, said nothing 
regarding the election of members to the state legis- 
lature. Thus on the 23rd of May, while the people 
were ratifying the ordinance of secession, they also 
elected a new Assembly. Then came the establishment 
of the Wheeling government and the call by "Gover- 
nor" Pierpoint for Lhe assembling of the legislature. 
Richmond was the place designated by the constitution 
for the holding of legislative sessions, and while the 

^ The Morgantown Star became a strong opponent of the pro- 
visional government and declared that the members of the con- 
vention had been bought off by New York brokers backed up 
by the Secessionists. West Virginia had always been cursed with 
conventions, whether held in Richmond or Wheeling. 

The provisional government was not recognized in many of the 
western counties. A circular letter from Lewis County was sent 
around June 13th, urging a counter-convention to be held at 
Lewisburg for the purpose of checkmating the Wheeling govern- 
ment. 

The Wheeling Intelligencer reports on July 30th that the 
counties were taking up the work of reorganization very slowly. 
It comments sorrowfully on the fact that the defeat of the 
North at Bull Run was being wildly celebrated throughout the 
central and southern parts of West Virginia. 



220 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

Governor was empowered to call extra sessions he could 
not change the capital from one city to another. How- 
ever the new-state officials could leap over this consti- 
tutional barrier as easily as they had brushed aside 
others. To act first and discuss later was their very 
effective mode of procedure, and to their strict adher- 
ence to this plan can the formation of the state of 
West Virginia be attributed. 

The Wheeling newspapers are strangely silent as 
to the doings of the rump legislature. They do not 
give even the names of the Senators and delegates who 
were present or what districts were represented.^ 
Granville Hall," the great apologist for the whole move- 
ment, passes over the subject in a most summary 
fashion. Judging from the number of votes cast in the 
election of United States Senators it seems probable 
that the largest number of Senators and delegates in 
the first session of the loyal legislature never exceeded 
thirty-eight.^ 

^ At the opening session three Senators were present : Joseph 
Gist, representing the Panhandle district; James Carskardon 
from the district composed of Hampshire, Hardy and Morgan 
counties; and C. J. Stuart, representing Ritchie, Doddridge, 
Harrison, Pleasants, and Wood counties. Twelve members of 
the House of Delegates answered the roll call the opening day. 
On the second day it was announced that a quorum was present. 

On the 26th of July the Wheeling IntelUgencer says, editorially: 
"We would be glad if they would settle the question among 
themselves down there as to whether or not they really are the 
Legislature of Virginia. This little question has been up in 
nearly all the discussions of the House and we hope some con- 
clusion may be reached before adjournment." 

^ Author of "The Rending of Virginia." 

^ The constitutional number was 206, so the unrepresentative 
character of this body is apparent. 



THE JUNE CONVENTION 221 

In the House of Delegates organization was effected 
after the manner of revolutionary, not constitutional, 
bodies. One of the members called the meeting to order; 
a temporary chairman was chosen, and finally perma- 
nent officers were selected. In the Senate "Lieutenant 
Governor" Polsley presided. It is not known how many 
Senators were present at this time but it is not likely 
that more than eight ever appeared. On the opening 
day the Governor's message was read. It was merely 
a re-hash of preceding documents. The late executive 
of the state and a large part of the state officials had 
declared war on the loyal people of Virginia and on 
the United States Government. This, so the message 
ran, was the result of the hammering process which 
had been carried on in the South for many years. 
Slavery was only the pretext and not the cause of the 
war. Virginia had been betrayed in Richmond and the 
loyal voters of the state were not able to make their 
votes count, because of the practice of intimidation 
which had been carried on so openly. The fate of West 
Virginia had been hanging in the balance and only 
prompt action would save her from invasion.^ The 
legislature was urged to elect United States Senators 
and circuit judges, for it was essential that the gov- 
ernment should be represented in Congress and that 
judicial officers should be holding court in the loyal 

^ June 21st Pierpoint had written to Lincoln asking for a 
military force to protect the loyal people of the section. Cam- 
eron, Secretary of War, was directed by the President to assure 
the Wheeling government that sufficient troops would be sent.— 
The Wheeling Intelligencer, June 23rd and 24th. 



222 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

counties.^ The question of forming a new state was 
not even hinted at — proof enough that it had been re- 
solved upon.^ 

The first real business of the legislature was the elec- 
tion of John S. Carlile and Waitman T. Willey as 
United States Senators. There was little opposition 
to Carlile, who had played a prominent part in the 
reorganization movement. Willey, however, had been 
an obstructionist in the May convention and had dis- 
played his disapproval of the second convention by 
remaining away altogether. Why he should have been 
chosen over other men no less able and assuredly more 
loyal is difficult to understand. It is probable that his 

* There were few if any loyal judges left in Virginia. Judge 
Thompson sent a protest to the Senate and to the Supreme Court 
of the United States denouncing the actions of the usurped 
government in declaring his office vacant, notwithstanding the 
fact that he had at all times on the bench and in public ad- 
dresses upheld the Constitution of the United States and had 
pronounced the ordinance of secession null and void. The 
Wheeling government, he declared, was illegal in its origin and 
proceedings. Any recognition of it by the Federal Government 
would violate the spirit of the United States Constitution by 
interfering in the internal affairs of the state. "It is protecting 
them in the violation of the constitution of the state in taking 
from the people the right to elect their Governor and Lieutenant 
Governor, sustaining a fragment of a legislature without con- 
stitutional quorum; in protecting and enforcing the laws of a 
legislature which does not in a legal or constitutional manner 
embrace one-twentieth of the . . . legislative jurisdiction of the 
state. . . . Venality, profligacy, and the ambition of a few men 
in political combination . . . have led us far onward to destruc- 
tion." 

Judge Thompson was a most unsuccessful straddler. In 
Wheeling he was treated as a Secessionist sympathizer while the 
Richmond legislature refused to pay him his salary because he 
had pronounced the ordinance of secession null and void. — 
Documents of Virginia 1861-62, Part 5, No. 52. 

^Wheeling Intelligencer, July 3, 1861. 



THE JUNE CONVENTION 223 

cooperation was desired and that the senatorship was 
handed to him as a sort of bribe. Furthermore, it is 
likely that Willej's conservative opinions found a re- 
sponse in the legislature, which preferred to have as its 
representatives men with moderate ideas. 



CHAPTER XIII 

WEST VIRGINIA BEFORE CONGRESS 

July 4, 1861, Congress assembled in special session. 
The President's message received more than usual at- 
tention, for it was felt that the administration policy 
would be clearly defined. Mr. Lincoln condemned in 
unmeasured terms the action of the Richmond Conven- 
tion in passing an ordinance of secession, but the subse- 
quent proceedings of the Virginia leaders, their seizure 
of the United States arsenal at Harper's Ferry and 
the navy yard at Gosport he denounced even more 
severely. His closing words on this subject are signifi- 
cant: "The people of Virginia have thus allowed this 
great insurrection to make its nest within her borders, 
and this government has no choice left but to deal with 
it wherever it finds it . . . and it has the less regret 
as the loyal citizens have in due form claimed its pro- 
tection. These loyal citizens this government is bound 
to recognize and protect as being Virginia." ^ 

In the House of Representatives while the roll was 

being called Mr. Burnett gave notice that he was going 

to move to strike from the roll of the House the names 

of the five representatives from Virginia.^ These men, 

^ "Messages and Papers of the Presidents," Vol. VI, p. 24. 
^ These were Messrs. Upton, Brown, Whaley, Carlile, and 
Pendleton. 

224 



WEST VIRGINIA BEFORE CONGRESS 225 

he declared, had been elected the preceding May 23rd, 
which was all right if Virginia was still in the Union. 
Otherwise they should be recognized as delegates. Car- 
lile ^ explained that he had been elected regularly as 
prescribed by law and the only possible question which 
could arise was whether the ordinance annulling the 
election was to be considered valid. Mr. Burnett 
affirmed that it was because a state could prescribe 
the mode, manner, and time of holding elections that 
he had brought the present matter up. Carlile granted 
that the state had this power, but raised the point that 
no action of the Richmond Convention was to be bind- 
ing until ratified by the people. Since the vote on 
ratification and the election of representatives to Con- 
gress fell on the same day, it was obviously impossible 
for the people to have consented to the abrogation of 
the regular election laws. Burnett's motion failed 
and the Virginia delegates thereupon took their seats 
in the House.^ 

In the Senate a more serious conflict took place. The 
admission by the House of the five Virginia representa- 
tives did not commit that body to anything more than 
the refusal to recognize the legality of a certain act 
passed by the Richmond Convention. The Senate faced 
a different problem. Carlile and Willey had been sent 
to the Senate by a body which called itself the legis- 
lature of Virginia, but whose right to do so not many 

^ Carlile had been elected to the House at the regular time 
in May before the meeting of the Wheeling legislature. 

^Congressional Globe; 1st Session, 37th Congress, Appendix, 
pp. 5-6. 



226 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

people would uphold. Even granting that it contained 
the only part of the legislature which could be recog- 
nized by the Federal Government as loyal, there^^still 
remained the question whether thirty-eight men could 
legally constitute an assembly in a state where the con- 
stitution required seventy-nine for a quorum in one 
house and twenty-six in the other. If the state con- 
stitution was still in force the delegates and Senators 
sitting at Wheeling could not rightfully designate them- 
selves the General Assembly of Virginia. If Virginia's 
secession from the Union was legal, then the state as a 
whole had severed its relation with the United States 
and the western section was bound by the act. Ac- 
cording to Lincoln's announced policy, none of the 
Confederate states had seceded because secession was 
unconstitutional. This being the case, the constitu- 
tion of Virginia must still be in force and the General 
Assembly at Richmond was the only true legislative 
body in the state. The W^heeling government could be 
recognized as the de facto government, but it had been 
set up by an original act of revolution and the handful 
of Senators and delegates it called together composed 
merely a provisional legislature deriving its power from 
the loyal people of the northwestern counties. This 
assembly might send delegates to Congress in the same 
manner that people in an unorganized territory sent 
delegates, for the purpose of obtaining recognition from 
the central government. Carlile and Willey, however, 
presented their credentials as Senators from Virginia 
elected by the legislature in the ordinary manner and 



WEST VIRGINIA BEFORE CONGRESS 227 

certified to by a man who called himself Governor of 
Virginia.^ 

Senator Bayard of Delaware protested that the ques- 
tion of recognition involved a constitutional point which 
was worthy of slow deliberation and asked that the mat- 
ter be referred to the Committee on Judiciary. Sauls- 
bury of Maryland supported this motion and said, 
furthermore, that at the time the Wheeling legislature 
had elected Carlile and Willey no vacancies existed, 
since Hunter and Mason had not been expelled from 
the Senate until the 11th of July, whereas Carlile and 
Willey had been elected on the 9th. Andrew Johnson, 
who stood sponsor for the new Senators from Virginia, 
wished to brush aside all legal questions and admit them 
on the evidence of their credentials. He argued that 
Hunter and Mason had vacated their seats before the 
9th of July and thus actual vacancies did exist. Sena- 
tor Trumbull said that they should not "stick in the 
bark" when such vital issues were presented. Besides, 
it was customary for the legislature to elect Senators 
before vacancies existed.^ The new Senators were here 

*The credentials read as follows: "The legislature of this 
state having on the ninth day of July, 1861, in pursuance of the 
Constitution of the United States, chosen Waitman T. Willey 
a Senator of this state to fill the vacancy which has happened 
by the withdrawal and abdication of James M. Mason, Esq., I, 
Francis H. Pierpoint, being Governor of the Commonwealth, do 
hereby certify the same to the Senate of the United States. — 
Given under my hand and seal of the Commonwealth this 9th 
day of July, 1861." 

The June convention had taken upon itself to adopt a new 
seal for Virginia. 

'"The sophistry of this argument is easily perceived. The 
terms of Hunter and Mason did not expire for some time, and 



228 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

representing the loyal people of a disloyal state, and 
why look beneath the surface? 

Senator Hale was equally desirous of disregarding 
precedents, while Senator Collamer held that the recog- 
nition of the new government of Virginia by the Presi- 
dent gave it legal existence as the de facto government. 
It was no part of the duty of the Senate to enquire 
into the internal affairs of a state unless called upon 
to do so by contesting claimants. 

Bayard summed up the arguments against the ad- 
mission of Carlile and Willey. A Senator of the United 
States was elected for six years and no state authority 
could shorten his term of office. Though elected by 
the legislature, he was not under its control when it 
came to the conduct of the office. The Senate, acting 
within its rights, expelled Messrs. Mason and Hunter, 
but the legislature of Virginia, even supposing it to 
be a legal legislature, could not anticipate the action 
of the Senate, which was sole judge of the qualifica- 
tions of its own members. The Executive had held th^t 
Virginia was still in the Union, since no state had the 
right to secede. It then followed that the state con- 
stitution was still in force; Letcher was the Governor 
of Virginia, and any credentials presented to be valid 
must be signed by him. Mr. Bayard and those who 
supported him realized that their opposition would 
be of no avail, because the administration had laid out 

no legislature could recognize a vacancy which only existed 
prospectively. The Senate, not the legislature, has the right 
to expel. For any legislature so to act would be assuming to 
itself the right of recall. 



WEST VIRGINIA BEFORE CONGRESS 229 

a course of action regarding the seceded states and 
would not be swerved from that action by mere force 
of argument. Constitutionality must be sacrified to 
expediency. 

The motion to refer the case was lost five to thirty- 
five -^ and the new Senators were sworn in as the suc- 
cessors of Mason and Hunter. 

The Wheeling government had now been officially 
recognized by the President and Congress as the gov- 
ernment of the whole state of Virginia. There were 
doubtless some persons among those sustaining the 
President's course who feared that a precedent might 
have been established which set aside the Constitution 
of the United States and interfered in the internal 
affairs of a state. But it seemed to be the general feel- 
ing, in Congress at least, that it was indeed no time 
to "stick in the bark." If the constitution could be 
preserved by liberal interpretation of its provisions, 
that was infinitely better than running the risk of hav- 
ing the Union destroyed altogether by adherence to a 
narrow construction. To gain a foothold in Virginia 
would give the North a decided advantage, especially 
as the occupied portion was supposedly loyal to the 
North. The situation in Tennessee and North Caro- 
lina might at some time be similar to the one existing 
in Virginia, and if the loyal citizens in these states 
should act as did the western Virginians and claim 



* Those voting aye were Bayard of Delaware, Bright of 
Indiana, Polk of Missouri, Howell of Kentucky, and Saulsbury 
of Maryland. 



230 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

recognition and protection it would be a very short- 
sighted policy on the part of the administration to 
refuse to take advantage of the opportunity thus 
offered. While we may sympathize with the Repub- 
lican leaders in Congress in their treatment of the West 
Virginia question in its earlier stages, their later 
actions are of even more doubtful legality and are in 
a sense deserving of condemnation. The recognition 
of the provisional government at Wheeling and the 
admission of West Virginia as a separate state are two 
very different matters. 



CHAPTER XIV 

THE WEST VIRGINIA ORDINANCE 

The second Wheeling Convention had adjourned to 
meet August 6th and it soon became apparent that the 
only business which would occupy the attention of the 
adjourned meeting would be that of dividing the state. 
Opposition had been crystallizing and the element which 
had before opposed hasty action on the new-state prop- 
osition now opposed it altogether.^ July 22nd the 
matter was debated in the House of Delegates. A bill 
giving the consent of the General Assembly in advance 
was brought in. It declared that the people of the 
western counties desired to break away from Virginia. 
Congress had shown a willingness to favor the loyal 
people of Virginia and would throw no obstacles in the 
path of the new state. The act, if passed, would give 
the convention power to erect a new state, providing 
certain boundaries were adhered to. It was further 
stipulated that provision should be made for the as- 
sumption by the new state of a share of the state debt 
contracted before May 23, 1861, and that other coun- 
ties not included in the original draft should be per- 

*The Wheeling Intelligencer made the accusation that the 
officers of the reorganized state were working against the set- 
ting-up of a state separate from Virginia. 

231 



232 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

mitted to vote on the question of uniting with their 
sister counties of the west.-^ The convention was to 
make necessary arrangements for drawing up a con- 
stitution which should be submitted to the people of 
the proposed state. 

Mr. West, who had hitherto been in the front rank 
of the West Virginia advocates, disclosed the fact that 
he had undergone a change in opinion. He declared 
that the Assembly was the place where such a move- 
ment should originate, especially as every memher of 
the legislature was a member of the convention. Most 
important of all is his statement that the people of 
West Virginia were changing their minds in the matter 
of cutting loose from Virginia and now there was grave 
doubt if the majority in any county was in favor of 
separation. This view was sustained by another mem- 
ber, who was frank enough to admit that he was in 
doubt as to whether or not their body could legally 
give its consent to the formation of a new state. Pass- 

* The boundary of the new state was to run from Tug Fork 
of the Big Sandy River on the Kentucky line to the dividing 
line between Buckhannan and Laban counties; then from the 
dividing line between Wyoming and McDowell to the Great 
Flat Mountains along the boundaries of Raleigh, Mercer, Fayette, 
Nicholas, Greenbrier, Webster, Pocahontas, Randolph, Pendleton, 
and Highland counties to the Shenandoah Mountains. The line 
then ran between the counties of Pendleton and Rockingham, 
Hardy and Shenandoah, Hampshire and Frederick, Morgan and 
Berkeley to the state line of Maryland. — Wheeling Intelligencer, 
July 23rd. 

The editor of this paper argued against the inclusion of 
known Secessionist counties. "If their people are hostile, the 
new state would perhaps be worth more without than with them. 
. . . Coercion is necessary in suppressing a rebellion, but forcing 
people into a new government is not suppressing rebellion." — 
Aug. 14, 1861. 



THE WEST VIRGINIA ORDINANCE 233 

ing by the legal question, there was still remaining 
that of expediency. Not more than one fifth of the 
people of Virginia were represented and not more than 
one half of the one fifth desired the division of the 
state. One of the advocates of separation, Mr. Snyder 
of Monongalia County, retorted that if he represented 
no more of a constituency than did some of the other 
gentlemen on the floor he could sit down and write to 
every one of them in -fifteen minutes asking their opinion 
on the point under discussion. The people who had 
sent him desired immediate separation. If the present 
legislature could do one thing it could do another. 
Mr. Snyder closed with the declaration that some of 
the members had been bought up. 

No further action was taken at this session and the 
legislature adjourned July 26th. 

On August 6th the convention reassembled. Dele- 
gates from thirt3^-one counties were present.^ After 
the preliminary business had been disposed of, a com- 
mittee consisting of one member from each county rep- 
resented was appointed to take up the questions of 
the division of the state and the confiscation of rebel 
property. The latter proposition caused many heart- 
burnings for, while many held that the action would be 
entirely justifiable, there were some who believed that 



* The counties represented were Hancock, Ohio, Brooke, Mar- 
shall, Wetzel, Marion, Monongalia, Wayne, Mason, Jackson, 
Wood, Tyler, Doddridge, Pleasants, Ritchie, Jefferson, Taylor, 
Hardy, Preston, Fairfax, Tucker, Hampshire, Randolph, 
Kanawha, Barbour, Wirt, Upshur, Harrison, Gilmer, and Lewis. 
The town of Alexandria was represented by Mr. Miner. 



234 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGrNTIA 

its ultimate effect would be unfortunate. The outlook 
for the Confederacy was bright and it seemed more than 
likely that the South might make good its position, a 
result which might prove a source of embarrassment to 
West Virginia. 

Farnsworth, another new-state man, astonished the 
convention by making a motion to adjourn sine die. 
The legislature, said he, had gone on record as opposed 
to the division of the state and nothing could be done 
without its consent. The motion was lost, for the 
legislature itself was now sitting as a convention and 
the delegates had explained satisfactorily their reasons 
for refusing assent in advance. A resolution was offered 
providing for the formation of a new state from 
Tennessee to the top of the Alleghany Mountains to 
the Maryland border. Carlile, whose prestige was en- 
hanced by his senatorial toga, took the position that 
it would be a mistake to include any county where the 
people were opposed to a division. Under the pro- 
vision of the above proposal, a number of such counties 
would become part of a state with which they were 
entirely out of sympathy. Far better would it be to 
make the new state smaller and more united in opinion. 
His views were embodied in a resolution presented Au- 
gust 9th, whereby the new state should consist of 
thirty-eight counties all lying west of the Alleghanies. 
Any county contiguous to the enumerated counties 
could by a popular vote annex itself to the new state.^ 

^Wheeling Intelligencer, Aug. 7th. The Intelligencer endorsed 
Carlile's views, declaring that a voluntary association of thirty 



THE WEST VIRGINIA ORDINANCE 235 

Some of the delegates were skeptical of any scheme 
which included the taking of a vote of the people. The 
legislature and the convention, said Mr. Stewart of 
Doddridge County, were for all practical purposes 
the people, and if they had gone thus far with no popti/- 
lar sanction they could proceed just as far as was 
necessary in order to carry out their plan. He chal- 
lenged amy person to point to a solitary act that had 
even authorized them to assemble for the purpose of 
breaking away from Virginia. It was true that this 
idea had been in the minds of many people, but no one 
present could present instructions from his con- 
stituents urging him to work for separation. As for 
himself, he did not believe the matter had ever been 
thought of by the people who elected him. If the con- 
vention was resolved to form a new state, let it do so 
without the farce of a popular election.^ 

The ordinance presented by the Committee on Di- 
vision showed that the large-state advocates had tri- 
umphed in the committee. The boundary line was to 
be drawn from the Tennessee line through the valley 
of Virginia to the boundary between Frederick County 
and Prince William County on the Potomac River. A 
more arbitrary line of division could scarcely have been 
conceived. No real natural boundaries existed between 
the proposed new state and old Virginia under the ordi- 
nance outlined. To provide against certain rejection 

counties was far better than an association of sixty unwilling 
counties. 

* Wheeling Intelligencer, Aug. 8th. 



236 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

in at least two thirds of the counties the vote was to 
be taken as a whole, no county being allowed to vote 
as a unit. This would ensure the acceptance of the 
plan, for it was well understood that in few counties 
outside the northern Panhandle would the people take 
the matter seriously enough to vote even where a poll 
was permitted. The Secessionists controlled all but a 
few of the western counties, and it was unthinkable 
that they would permit a vote to be taken in those 
counties. The delegates favoring the above plan were 
frankly opportunists. It was felt that a little further 
stretching of the constitution and a little more disre- 
gard of popular opinion would do no harm, especially 
as they had the assurance that their actions would be 
sustained by the Federal Government. The chance to 
break away from Virginia might never come again and 
western Virginia would be compelled to endure indefi- 
nitely the oppression of the East.^ 

The opponents of division attacked vigorously the 
weak spots of the ordinance, asserting that not only 
had there been no popular uprising in favor of separa- 
tion from Virginia but there was every reason for be- 
lieving that public opinion was strongly against it. 
Furthermore, the consent of the whole people of the 
state had to be obtained, which, of course, was im- 

* Mr. West was the leader of the opportunists. He favored 
taking in the counties whether they wished it or not; professed 
to be absolutely indifferent as to the fate of Virginia; and de- 
clared his opposition to any plan which did not include a large 
number of counties. The ordinance under consideration suited 
him, he said, "because it contained the grave of Washington." — 
Wheeling Intelligencer, Aug. 8th. 



THE WEST VIRGINIA ORDINANCE 237 

possible. Congress undoubtedly had the power to 
admit the proposed new state, but to do so it would 
have to disregard constitutions and establish prece- 
dents and recognize, virtually, an act of secession.^ 

August 14th Farnsworth brought in a substitute for 
the committee's plan.^ It proposed to make the Alle- 
ghanies the eastern boundary of the state, thus exclud- 
ing those counties which were known to be in sympathy 
with the Southern cause. Boreman of Tyler County 
urged that it would be premature to take any action 
at this time since the counties were in such a disturbed 
condition that a full, free vote was impossible.^ Mr. 
Ritchie took the position that the convention was ex- 
ceeding its powers and instructions in even considering 
a division of the old state at this time. It had been 
called to reorganize the government of Virginia, an 
act which had been accomplished. Further proceedings 
would embarrass the general government and start a' 
discussion of the slavery question. To enforce his 
views, Mr. Ritchie read a letter from Attorney General 
Bates, who said that he had talked over the situation 
in western Virginia with a number of officials and all 
agreed that the division of Virginia would be an origi- 
nal act of revolution. The reorganization of the state 
government was a strictly legal proceeding, but there 
the matter should rest.'* This opinion was concurred 

* Barnes of Marion County expressed this view, which was 
supported by a number of the ablest men of the convention. 

"^ Wheeling Intelligencer, Aug. 8th. 
' Wheeling Press, Aug. 8th. 

* Wheeling Intelligencer^ Aug. 9th. 



238 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

in by many who were not opponents of division per se 
but who doubted the expediency of the action under 
existing conditions. No one seriously beheved, they 
said, that division could be accomplished constitu- 
tionally while Virginia was in rebellion against the Fed- 
eral Government, and to attempt it would put up to 
the administration one more difficult problem to solve. 
More than this, it would be a cowardly act to desert 
the Union men in the eastern counties. While not con- 
stituting a majority in any county, the number of loyal 
citizens was sufficiently large to deserve consideration. 
As for the state debt, there was no honorable way open 
whereby the proposed new state could be relieved from 
the necessity of saddling itself with a heavy burden. 
If repudiation were attempted, the bondholders would 
check any further progress of the movement in Con- 
gress.^ 

Lieutenant Governor Polsley spoke in opposition to 
division. With the example of the Richmond Conven- 
tion before them, they should take warning and limit 
themselves to the consideration of the questions which 
they had been called together to settle. When the ordi- 
nance of secession was adopted, the formality of a vote 
at least had been allowed, but even that would be prac- 
tically denied if the ardent new-state men had their 
way. All knew that under existing conditions not one 
fourth of the counties could or would vote.^ Hubbard 



^Speech of Fontaine Smith of Marion County. — Intelligencer, 
Aug. 9th. 
^ Ibid. 



THE WEST VIRGINIA ORDINANCE 239 

of Ohio County agreed that it would be selfish to con- 
sider local interests while the United States Government 
was in such grave peril. All loyal western Virginians 
should be willing to remain in the old state just as long 
as they could thereby benefit the general government. 
Senator Carlile, in answer to this, denied that thp 
administration would be embarrassed in any way by 
being called upon to decide the status of the western 
counties. As for local sentiment, if they waited for a 
full representation from every county the state would 
never be formed. Interest was the base of all political 
action and was justification enough for their purpose.^ 
Daniel Lamb of Ohio County presented the case of 
the opposition in its clearest form. He was in favor 
of division just as soon as it could be accomplished in 
the proper manner, when a full and free expression of 
opinion could be obtained. It was less than two months 
since the reorganized government had been set up and 
already there were many who were not satisfied. Such 
haste seemed suspicious in view of the fact that there 
was now no danger of threatening them. Mr. Lamb 
was proceeding on the assumption that the reorganized 
government would go out of existence when the new 
state was admitted. He thought that after the Federal 
authorities had taken possession of the eastern part of 

^ Carlile had previously suggested a scheme that might be 
termed sharp practice. The new state was to issue bonds and 
with part of the proceeds buy at thirty or forty cents on the 
dollar enough Virginia bonds to make up their share of the 
indebtedness. — Granville Hall, "The Rending of Virginia," pp. 
363-4. 



240 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

the state, it would be necessary to set up a government 
there and a clash between the two sets of officials in 
Virginia was inevitable.^ It is evident that Lamb was 
ignorant of the fact that there was no intention to do 
away with the provisional government.^ It had served 
a useful purpose in western Virginia, and could still 
be of service in reconstructing the east. 

Carlile now proposed a compromise, which provided 
for the inclusion of the counties under the Farnsworth 
plan and the submission of the question to the counties 
individually. An amendment to this was adopted, sub- 
stituting the boundaries of the original committee 
recommendation. The debate became heated. Carlile 
overstepped parliamentary bounds in referring to other 
members and the convention adjourned in disorder.^ 

Monday the 19th a new committee of six was ap- 
pointed to agree upon some compromise measure.* The 
ordinance presented by them on the 20th became the 
one upon which the present state of W^est Virginia 
was founded. Thirty-nine counties were to be included 
and the new state should be called Kanawha. On Oc- 
tober 24th there was to be an election, at which dele- 
gates were to be chosen to a constitutional convention 
and at the same time the people of Greenbrier, Poca- 
hontas, Hardy, Hampshire, Morgan, Berkeley, and 

* Granville Hall, "The Rending of Virginia," p. 369. 

'Lamb objected to the word provisional. The convention had 
acted irregularly, but its work was a permanent one. 
'Granville Hall, "The Rending of Virginia," p. 372. 

* The committee was composed of Messrs. Farnsworth, Carlile, 
Paxton, Van Winkle, Ruffner, and Lamb. 



THE WEST YIRGINIA ORDINANCE 241 

Jefferson counties were to be permitted to vote on the 
question of annexation to the new state. The state 
was to assume a fair proportion of that part of the 
Virginia debt which had been created prior to January 
1, 1861.-^ Mr. Van Winkle in supporting the report, 
of the committee explained that he himself was a recent 
convert to the small state plan, having been brought 
to see that it would be unwise to include any portion 
of the Valley where the people were so strongly in favor 
of secession. 

Those favoring the large state were dissatisfied with 
the committee's report as were, of course, the oppo- 
nents of separation under any circumstances. Neither 
of these factions could be brought to see that the in- 
clusion of the Valley counties was desirable at all, al- 
though they admitted that there was some truth in the 
statement that the feeling against separation in some 
of the counties taken in by the committee's plan was 
no less strong than that in the counties east of the 
Alleghanies. Mr. Tarr succeeded in having passed a 
motion to include Hampshire, Hardy, Morgan, Berke- 
ley, and Jefferson counties unconditionally. Its adop- 
tion gave rise to a bitter discussion. Carlile asserted 

* This section reads as follows : "The new state shall take 
upon itself a just proportion of the public debt of the com- 
monwealth of Virginia prior to the first day of January, 1861, 
to be ascertained by charging to it all state expenditures within 
the limits thereof and a just proportion of the ordinary ex- 
penses of the state government since any part of said debt was 
contracted; and deducting therefrom the monies paid into the 
treasury of the commonwealth from the counties included within 
the said new state during the same period." — Wheeling Intelli- 
gencer, Aug. 21st. 



242 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

that the people of these counties would be denied any 
choice in the matter. Hampshire and Jefferson had 
even voted in favor of the ratification of the ordinance 
of secession, and there was every reason for believing 
that the pro-Southern feeling was stronger now. The 
thirty-nine counties first included in the committee re- 
port contained few slaves, but this number would be 
raised by eight thousand if the resolution just adopted 
was not rejected. Carlile's views prevailed and Tarr^s 
motion was reconsidered and voted down.^ The ordi- 
nance was then adopted, fifty to twenty-eight. A num- 
ber of the members voting aye explained and apolo- 
gized for their action, saying that their only reason 
for agreeing to the ordinance was the conviction that 
it was the best that could be obtained at the time.^ 

The business of the convention was now over and 
it adjourned to meet at the call of the Governor or of 
the presiding officer, if such call should be made before 
the first Thursday of January, 1862. After that time 
the convention was to go out of existence automatically. 



^ Wheeling Intelligencer, Aug. 21st. In a letter of Carlile's to 
a man in Fairview, Virginia, he declares that the only West 
Virginia was northwestern Virginia. The remainder of the sec- 
tion west of the mountains was in sympathy with the east. The 
two western divisions of Virginia had little in common. He adds 
that he was surprised to find in Wheeling a strong sentiment 
against the division of the state. — Ibid., Aug. 22nd. 

'Ibid. The sections providing for the holding of the election 
contained some curious features. One of them states that if 
the county officials refused to open the polls, any two freemen 
could do so anywhere in the county and constitute themselves 
the election commissioners. The possibilities of fraud in an 
election conducted after this manner are too evident to require 
comment. 



THE WEST VIRGINIA ORDINANCE 243 

The inside history of the convention which framed 
the ordinance for the state of Kanawha, as it was then 
called, can never be written. Only the leaders could 
give an intelligible explanation of the devious course 
pursued by them. Now that they are all gone, it seems 
unlikely that any light will ever be thrown upon the 
questions in doubt. The most astonishing thing is the 
rapidity with which the members were able to change 
their minds on propositions of the utmost importance. 
A delegate would offer a resolution one morning to the 
effect that the state should be immediately divided; in 
the afternoon he would have a new set of resolutions 
ready, the sense of which was that division was unwise 
and the convention should at once adjourn. There 
was scarcely a prominent member of the body who pur- 
sued an unwavering course. As a rule the officers of 
the reorganized government opposed the new state until 
they found that they would be provided for after the 
state was divided. In the convention no sectional align- 
ment was maintained. The Panhandle counties were 
just as likely to be found in opposition to division as 
the delegates from the counties farther south. In such 
a confused state of affairs it is impossible to make any 
generalizations which would hold true for the entire 
session. It is the fact that the convention did provide 
for the organization of a new state in the Union, after 
having given the best reasons for believing that it 
would do nothing of the kind. What influences and 
arguments were brought to bear upon the delegates will 
never be known. 



CHAPTER XV 



WAE SENTIMENT 



The Federal recruiting officers found it difficult to 
raise troops anywhere in Virginia, even in the sup- 
posedly loyal northwestern counties. The people of 
the west preferred being let alone by both contending 
parties, but it was especially repugnant to them to be 
pitted in battle against their own fellow-citizens of 
Virginia. In Wheeling by May 23d there were five 
hundred and forty-one soldiers in camp and the officers 
reported that the work of raising troops was a slow 
process.-^ On the same day thirty-two Confederate 
sympathizers left the city for Harper's Ferry, vowing 
never to return until "the Goths and Vandals had been 
driven out." ^ Large numbers of Southern troops 
gathered in Clarksburg, Fairmont, and Grafton and 
remained until the arrival of a Union army.^ 

A little later the correspondent of the Indianapohs 

* Pittsburgh Chronicle, May 24. June 10, the Intelligencer re- 
ported that two companies from the interior of the state came 
to Wheeling to enlist but refused to do so when they found they 
might be compelled to leave the state and fight. 

^ Ibid. 

' It was reported that on May 22nd there were a thousand 
Secessionists at Clarksburg, three thousand at Grafton and one 
thousand at Fairmont. This was denied in a letter to the 
Chronicle written by a man who had just returned from the 
district. 

244 



WAR SENTIMENT 245 

Journal wrote back that while West Virginia was sup- 
posed to have three regiments in the field, out of one 
thousand men one hundred and fifty were from Vir- 
ginia, the remainder being from western Pennsylvania 
and eastern Ohio. This was true of all the regiments. 
"You will see lying around country towns scores of 
great big, ugly, awkward, stand-up-and-call-your- 
mother-a-liar fellows who are Virginians, but not in 
the army." At the very least one half of the people 
were out-and-out Secessionists and those professing to 
be Union men showed their love for the Union by 
charging five prices for provisions.^ The Cincinnati 
Gazette expressed its disappointment at the evident 
apathy of West Virginia in the matter of enlisting in 
the Union army. It declared that there was good 
reason to suppose that the attachment of the section 
to the Union was not as strong as had been supposed.^ 
It may be stated with some degree of positiveness that 
the false impressions which had gotten out regarding 

^ Quoted in the Wheeling Intelligencer, Aug. 10, 1861. 

^ Ibid. An editorial in the Wellsburg Herald, Aug. 3, takes the 
western Virginians severely to task for their reluctance to enlist 
in the Union army. Referring to the fact that most of the 
troops guarding the section were from Ohio and Pennsylvania, 
the editor says: "We would not be surprised if the patriotic 
Ohioans would have such a high opinion of the amiability of their 
Virginia brethren of the Union persuasion that they may be 
induced to settle down and become a permanent guard over their 
lives and property. A pretty condition Northwestern Virginia 
is in to establish herself into a separate state . . . after all the 
drumming and all the gas about a separate state she has actually 
organized in the field four not entire regiments of soldiers and 
one of these hails almost entirely from the Panhandle. In a 
white population of over a quarter of a million, 3000 men to 
stand up for the Union is truly a heavy draft upon the patriotism 
of our section." The editor of the Wheeling Intelligencer, Aug. 



246 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

the Union feeling in West Virginia were a direct result 
of the articles appearing in newspapers like the Wheel- 
ing Intelligencer in which the wish was father to the 
thought. In professing to speak for the whole western 
region, they persuaded the North that West Virginia 
was thoroughly loyal and would respond unflinchingly 
at the call of the Federal Government. The discovery 
was soon made that the loyalty of the people was in 
inverse proportion to their distance from the Northern 
states. If correspondents in Wheeling were convinced 
that the people of the northern Panhandle were in- 
diff'erent what would they expect to find in the interior 
counties, where the danger of invasion was compara- 
tively small? 

Just as the large body of western Virginians were 
neutral in the conflict that was pending, so were they 
indiff'erent as to the actions of the Wheeling govern- 
ment, showing their disapproval by staying away from 
the polls. There was a general feeling that the new 
state if formed would be the result of a secret, restless 
desire on the part of aspiring politicians to obtain 
offices.^ Under the old regime West Virginia had fared 

13th, stated authoritatively that there were in western Virginia 
14 regiments of Ohio volunteers, 3 of Indiana, 2 of Kentucky, 3 
of Virginia, two of the latter being part full. Many Pennsyl- 
vanians enlisted in Virginia regiments. 

^ Intelligencer, Sept. 2nd. Letter from Ironton, Ohio, Nov. 2, 
1861, to Adjutant General Samuels: "The provisional govern- 
ment of Virginia seems to be more popular with a majority of 
our people than our own state government, for we have only about 
two hundred men from this county enlisted in Ohio regiments." 
The writer stated that there were eleven full companies from his 
county enlisted "as Virginians." 

Letter from C. F. Ritchie, Farmington, to General Samuels: 



WAR SENTIMENT 247 

badly in the distribution of state offices, but it must be 
admitted that the west had produced few able men. In 
1860 Carlile, Boreman, Pierpoint, and Willey were only 
local celebrities. George W. Summers, easily the most 
distinguished western Virginian, held aloof from the 
new-state movement. The people were suspicious of a 
ruling clique which destroyed old constitutions and en- 
acted new ones with such ease and with so little regard 
to public sentiment. The same group of men organized 
the May convention, summoned the June convention, 
called together and sat as members of the rump legis- 
lature; met one day as a convention and passed an 
ordinance setting up a new state; met the next day 
as the General Assembly of Virginia and gave their 

"The largest company in the Regiment are all Secesh save three. 
I made it elect a good Union Captain, but few of them turned 
out." 

Letter to General Samuels, Kanawha Court House, April 14, 
1862: "Almost all the old officers are rebels. . . . How are we 
to deal with Secessionists? . . . Please understand we are just 
about as though the Regiment had never been organized." 

Letter to Governor Pierpoint from Fairmont, March 10, 1862, 
signed John Google, Company I, 18th Regiment. They had 
elected "a most vile Secessionist as Captain. A majority are 
rebels and would like nothing better than to hand over the 
organization to the South." 

Letter to Governor Pierpoint from Colonel Harris, 10th Regi- 
ment, located at Harrisville, March 27, 1862: "The election of 
officers in the Gilmer County Company was a farce. The 
men elected were rebels and bush-whackers. The election of 
these men was intended, no doubt, as a burlesque on the reor- 
ganization of the militia." 

Letter to General Samuels from Glenville, Gilmer County, 
March 19, 1862, from Captain Hall: "The election of officers 
resulted in a perfect burlesque. They were all secession leaders 
of guerrilla parties." 

Note. — All the above letters were found by the author of this 
monograph in the Department of Archives and History, Charles- 
ton, W. Va. 



248 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

consent to the very act which they had agreed to the 
day before ; created offices for themselves and fixed their 
own salaries. Then, to cap the climax, a free vote 
was made impossible and no one but known adherents 
of the new state were permitted to go to the polls. It 
was admitted that even in the Panhandle there was no 
enthusiasm for the new state. June 31, 1861, George 
McC. Porter attempted to arouse the spirit of a Wheel- 
ing audience by asserting that "he was born in Virginia 
and hoped to die — in West Virginia." This statement 
instead of being applauded was received in silence.^ 
As strange as it may seem, when the much-longed-for 
opportunity arrived, the people of West Virginia dis- 
covered that their Virginia pride was stronger than 
they had imagined. At the final moment sentiment 
seemed to triumph over reason.^ 

Across the mountains Richmond observed the prog- 
ress of affairs in northwestern Virginia with mingled 
anger and alarm. In his message to the Virginia As- 
sembly, December 2, 1861, Governor Letcher denounced 
the unpatriotic spirit exhibited by a portion of the 
people in the northwest and characterized their acts 
aimed at the dismemberment of the state as disloyal 
and revolutionary. Their conduct, said the Governor, 
was without justification or excuse, especially as their 
leaders had pledged themselves to abide by and acquiesce 
in this popular expression of sentiment. "But instead 

* Wheeling Intelligencer, July 1, 1861. 

2 The editor of the Wellsburg Herald declared that he was sur- 
prised to find so much sentiment for Virginia in his county. 



WAR SENTIMENT 249 

of this they had given aid to an army composed of 

the reckless and the abandoned, the dissolute and the 

depraved, gathered from the purlieus of the cities and 

villages of the north and the floating scum of western 

population." The section should not be abandoned 

to the traitor residents and the mercenary soldiery, said 

Mr. Letcher. Many loyal Virginians had been driven 

from their homes while their property was confiscated; 

it was the sacred duty of the state to repossess them 

of their lost goods. "The commonwealth must not be 

dismembered. When the war ends she must be what 

she was when it was inaugurated. The Ohio River was 

the western boundary then and it must continue to 

be her boundary." ^ 

Eastern Virginia had only the vaguest notion of 

what was taking place in the western portion of the 

state. Refugees brought wild stories of the acts of 

cruelty and oppression perpetrated by the Union men. 

But for the presence of Union troops, it was asserted, 

^"Documents of Virginia, 1861-62," Part I, p. 13. June 14th 
the Governor had issued a proclamation to the people of north- 
western Virginia, informing them that the state had ratified 
the ordinance of secession by a majority of nearly 100,000. 
Good citizens should yield to the will of the state as expressed 
by this vote. "Men of the northwest, I appeal to you by all the 
considerations which have drawn us together as one people 
heretofore to rally to the standard of the Old Dominion. By 
all the sacred ties of consanguinity ... by memories of the past, 
by the relics of the great men of other days, come to Virginia's 
banner and drive the invaders from your soil. There may be 
traitors in the midst of you who, for selfish ends, have turned 
against their mother and would permit her to be ignominiously 
oppressed and degraded. But I cannot, will not, believe that a 
majority of you are not true sons who will give your blood and 
your treasure for Virginia's defense." — "Documents of Vir- 
ginia," p. 9. 



250 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

the whole country would be aroused for secession. No 
rumor was too absurd to obtain credence. It was com- 
monly reported that the Pierpoint government had 
passed an ordinance divorcing all refugee husbands 
from their wives, declaring that no citizen of Virginia 
could remain in lawful matrimony with a citizen of the 
restored state, but that the mere act of flight from the 
loyal counties to the seceded portion of the state dis- 
solved the marriage tie.^ According to one writer, 
newspapers not in sympathy with the prosecution of 
the war were not allowed to circulate in the part of 
West Virginia under Federal supervision.^ One cal- 
culating genius figi^red out that West Virginia had 
really given a majority of 3,400 for the ordinance of 
secession, which majority would have been greatly in- 
creased but for the fact that coercion was resorted to.^ 
It was a common belief that the only Union sym- 
pathizers in West Virginia were foreigners and recent 
settlers from free states. "The native West Virginians, 
with a few dishonorable exceptions, are true to the 
South," one paper stated.^ This impression was con- 
firmed by all the refugees from western Virginia who 
exaggerated the number of Secessionists as much as 

^The Memphis Appeal copied this item and scattered it 
throughout the South as an illustration of what was taking place 
under the Lincoln government. 

2 Letter to the Richmond Whig Aug. 10, 1861. As a matter 
of fact, the very reverse was true. The Wheeling Intelligencer, 
as strong a Union paper as there was in the United States, was 
not allowed circulation in most of the western counties by the 
action of the citizens themselves. 

3 Ibid. 
* Ibid. 



WAR SENTIMENT 251 

the North underestimated them. A memorial to the 
General Assembly in the fall of 1861 discloses the 
source of Richmond's misapprehension of the state of 
affairs in the Trans-Alleghany. Drawn up by some 
prominent western Secessionists who had been forced 
to leave their homes, it exhibited all the bias one should 
expect to find in a document composed under such 
circumstances.^ They absolved from blame the large 
majority of their western compatriots and not only 
gave as proof of their loyalty to the South the per- 
sonal observance of the situation by the signers of the 
memorial, but also pointed to the result of a number 
of polls taken in the very sections supposed to be most 
loyal. Not more than one fourth of the qualified voters 
had participated in any election held by the Pierpoint 
government. Upon the question of dividing Virginia 
not one third of the ordinary vote was polled in Wheel- 
ing, the strongest Union community in the state. 
Trans-Alleghany Virginia had furnished a large num- 
ber of troops to the Confederate army, yet the people 
had little interest in the original subject of controversy 
between the North and the South. Thus all the more 
credit should be given them for sinking their own good 
in the good of the state. Hemmed in by powerful 
Northern states, their hands were tied if they remained 
at home. If they enlisted in the Confederate service, 
their property was confiscated." 

^ This memorial was signed by C. W. Russell, A. F. Hay- 
mond, G. D. Camden, W. L. Jackson, and R. Johnson. 
* "Documents of Virginia," Part V, No. 33. 



252 THE DISRUPTION OF VIEGINIA 

As the success of the Southern cause in West Vir- 
ginia became less probable, the bitterness of the East 
increased. Letcher found his chief diversion in railing^ 
at the Pierpoint government. Lincoln he indicted for 
permitting Pierpoint to plunder the state treasury 
of $4)0,000, for subjecting Virginia to the jurisdiction 
of foreign laws, for quartering large bodies of troops 
in the state, etc.^ The report of the United States 
Secretary of War in December, 1861, awakened great 
resentment in Virginia. Cameron had recommended the 
reconstruction of Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia, 
with the purpose in view of making the city of Wash- 
ington less accessible to attack. He suggested that 
the boundary of Virginia should be altered, so that she 
would be shut in on the north and east by Pennsylvania 
and the Blue Ridge Mountains. Two counties of Mary- 
land were to be annexed to Virginia, and all of the 
state lying between the Blue Ridge and Chesapeake Bay 
was to become part of Maryland. A portion of the 
peninsula between Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic 
Ocean, held by Virginia and Maryland, was to be in- 
corporated into Delaware. Finally, it was urged that 
the part of the District of Columbia retroceded to Vir- 
ginia should be taken back.^ To this a Richmond 
paper responds : "There can be no Virginia unless it 
includes both eastern and western Virginia. Cameron, 
the execrable Secretary of War of the Lincoln des- 

^ "Documents of Virginia 1861-62," Part V, No. 42. 
* Senate Documents, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. II, pp. 
13-14. 



WAR SENTIMENT 253 

potism, has presented the servile Congress of that 
loathsome tyranny with a map in which eastern Virginia 
is attached to Maryland. . . . We say that if we 
cannot hold West Virginia we can hardly defend the 
South." 1 

January, 1862, the General Assembly at Richmond 
passed a joint resolution on the subject of the division 
of the state. It read as follows: 

"WTiereas the public enemy, invited by domestic foes, 
being in power within some of the counties in Virginia, 
where they are confiscating the property of loyal citi- 
zens and otherwise oppressing them in a cruel man- 
ner; and whereas the traitors there, contemplating a 
division of this time-honored commonwealth with the 
aid of this public enemy have set up a pretended govern- 
ment over the same, which under the force of circum- 
stances could not be prevented by the timely sending of 
an adequate military force ; and whereas the legislature 
desires to reassure all loyal citizens throughout the 
commonwealth of their desire and intention to protect 
them, therefore, Resolved by the Senate and House of 
Delegates that in no event will the state of Virginia sub- 
mit to or consent to the loss of a foot of her soil ; that 
it is the firm determination of the state ... to assert 
and maintain the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Vir- 
ginia to the utmost limits of her ancient boundaries at 
any and every cost." ^ 

There was a noticeable indisposition on the part of 

the authorities of Virginia to pass retaliatory acts 

against the people of the western section. Pierpoint and 

^ Richmond Dispatch, Dec. 9, 1861. 

' "Documents of Virginia, 1861-62," No. 46. 



254 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

his colleagues were excoriated in the severest terms, but 
it was thoroughly believed that the great mass of peo- 
ple disapproved of the Wheeling government, and there- 
fore should not be punished for something which was 
more their misfortune than their fault. ^ 

October 21, 1861, was the day designated for the 
vote on the question of dividing the state and the elec- 
tion of delegates to the constitutional convention. Few 
people beyond the borders of the northwestern counties 
took the slightest interest in the affair although the 
editors of the loyal newspapers did their best to arouse 
the people to the importance of the occasion. The 
editor of the Wheeling Intelligencer devoted many col- 
umns in his efforts to awaken the citizens from their 
apathy which, he predicted, would prevent West Vir- 
ginia from becoming a reality. What the people really 
needed, he said, was a more intense love for the Union 
and a greater hatred of secession. In many of the 
western counties rebel soldiers had returned to their 
homes and were living there undisturbed by their loyal 
neighbors." Moreover, it was safer to be a Secessionist 
in these counties than to be known as a Northern sup- 
porter, for the latter as a class had no pluck or 
stamina.^ 

^ It is the fact that several acts appropriating money for 
improvements in the west were repealed, but this was only a 
part of the general policy to concentrate the financial resources 
of the state on the military. — "Laws of Virginia," 1861-2, p, 61. 

2 Wheeling Intelligencer, Oct. 15, 1861. 

^The correspondent of the Cincinnati Commercial wrote: "The 
most curious, miserly set of beings I ever saw are the Union 
men of West Virginia. I have never seen but one who would 



WAR SENTIMENT 255 

It was well understood that there would be almost no 
votes cast on the question of division outside the north- 
west, and the necessity was plain of rolling up as large 
a majority for separation as possible. Here someone 
blundered. Instead of allowing a free vote, the election 
was so manipulated that it was difficult for the oppon- 
ents of the ordinance to register their protests.^ As a 
result, the vote proves too much. We have presented 
evidence showing the strength of secession in all por- 
tions of West Virginia. What then is to be inferred 
when we find the official vote reported as follows : Put- 
nam County, 209 for, none against division; Cabell, 
200 to nothing; Gilmer, unanimous (no vote given); 
Clay, 96 to 0; Raleigh, 32 to 0; Harrison, 1,148 to 2; 
Marion, 760 to 38; Monongalia, 1,591 to 18; Upshur, 
614 to 0; Randolph, 171 to 2, etc. The official vote 
was announced to be 18,408 for division and 781 
against it.^ 

No one will seriously believe that this vote repre- 
sented i le sentiment of the people of West Virginia. It 
is more than doubtful if 18,000 votes were cast alto- 
gether, for with one faction controlling the election it 
would be a miracle if wholesale frauds were not perpe- 
trated. The whole matter was treated with derision 
and contempt in the southern and eastern counties. 

expend a dime towards the preservation of the Union." Quoted 
in Wheeling Intelligencer, Oct. 31, 1861. 

^ The newspapers of the district hint at the methods used to 
exclude voters. The Ritchie County Democrat, for example, sug- 
gested that no one should be allowed to vote but known Union 
men. 

2 Wheeling Intelligencer, Oct. 26, 1861. 



256 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

Described by Union writers as "the wilderness of seces- 
sion," one cannot imagine that election notices were 
posted and the polls opened October 24th, as was pro- 
vided for in the ordinance. The two men undertaking 
the task of election commissioners in the "rebel" coun- 
ties would have to bear charmed lives. When it is re- 
membered that by this vote the thirty-nine counties of 
the new state were supposed to express their approval 
of a division of Virginia and of the appeal to Congress 
to admit them as a new state, the farcical nature of 
West Virginia's origin may be perceived. 



CHAPTER XVI 1 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention as- 
sembled in Wheeling November 26, 1861, "in pursuance 
of elections held on the fourth Thursday of October, 
1861, under authority of 'an ordinance to provide for 
the formation of a new state out of a portion of the 
territory of this state' passed August 20th of that year 
by the convention which reorganized the government of 
Virginia, the convention to frame a constitution for 
the proposed state of Kanawha." 

Thirty-seven of the seventy-five delegates elected 
were present, representing thirty-one counties.^ Com- 
mittees on Credentials and on Constitutional Provisions 
were appointed, but not until after the delegates had 
given good evidence of their disposition to fall afoul 

* This chapter is based on the original manuscript of the pro- 
ceedings of the Convention, heretofore never used, and to be 
found in the office of the State Historian and Archivist, Charles- 
ton, W. Va. Page references will not be given for the reason 
that the manuscript will soon be printed as a state document 
and is at present unedited. 

' Randolph, Tucker, Preston, Marion, Taylor, Barbour, Upshur, 
Harrison, Lewis, Kanawha, Wayne, Cabell, Putnam, Mason, 
Jackson, Roane, Wirt, Gilmer, Ritchie, Wood, Pleasants, Tyler, 
\ Doddridge, Wetzel, Marshall, Hancock, Ohio, Hampshire, Hardy, 
Boone, Brooke. No returns reported from Logan, Nicholas, 
Webster, Calhoun. 

257 



258 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

of one another on the least provocation. Before the 
convention was formally organized, a contest arose 
over the representation of Wyoming and Fayette coun- 
ties, which had not held elections, "owing to the hostile 
state of the county," but from which certain delegates 
presented credentials in the form of petitions signed by 
residents of the counties. Final action was deferred, 
but the bearers of these petitions were permitted to 
remain on the floor and vote. 

For the office of president of the convention the 
"radicals" nominated John Hall of Mason County, 
while the "conservatives" put forward as their candi- 
date J. H. Brown of Kanawha County. The latter 
withdrew and Mr. Hall was chosen. E. R. Hall of Tay- 
lor County was nominated for secretary, his election 
being urged on the ground of his having been persecuted 
at home on account of his politics.^ 

A difference of opinion arose over the question of 
taking an oath to support the reorganized government 
of Virginia. According to Mr. Willey, it was merely 
a test of loyalty. "It can have no other object, be- 
cause it is extra-official, and it is a matter entirely at 
the option of any member of this body whether he will 
take it or not. There is no law that requires it. Be- 
sides, Sir, this body has received a higher sanction from 
the voluntary suffrage of a generous constituency." 
Mr. Van W^inkle was of the opinion that since they were 

^ It is evident from the discussion that quite a number of the 
delegates had been driven from their counties and needed finan- 
cial assistance. 



THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 259 

paid and upheld by the government in question they 
should not object to the oath. Mr. Hall, of Marion, 
thought that the taking of such an oath would exhibit 
a lack of faith in one another; and Mr. Stevenson, of 
Wood, opposed it because they were sent to destroy the 
old constitution to which they would swear allegiance. 
It is clear that the conservatives looked upon the pro- 
posed oath as a method devised by their opponents to 
test the loyalty of the opposition. "There is a fitness 
in every man taking the oath every morning," said Mr. 
Hall, "where we see treason all around us in the quar- 
ters where we have been startled to find it. There is 
propriety in a man distrusting himself, though he may 
be indorsed by his whole people." He concluded by 
declaring that there had been too much oath breaking, 
a statement affirmed by Mr. Willey, who recalled the 
fact that in his county seventy citizens had broken 
their oath after they had gone so far as to have them 
(the oaths) recorded. 

A Business Committee of nine was appointed, com- 
posed of Messrs. Van Winkle, Brown (of Kanawha), 
Hall (of Marion), Irvine, Sheets, Parker, Chapman, 
Caldwell, and Hagar. This became the "steering com- 
mittee" of the convention. 

The question of seating Messrs. Cassady and Walker 
now arose. According to Mr. Stuart it was the only 
way by which the counties not sending regularly ac- 
credited representatives could get a hearing. A slight 
irregularity was not worth noticing, with which remark 
Mr. Willey agreed, adding that "these are revolution- 



260 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

ary times. The house is on fire and we cannot be very 
technical." He said he would vote to admit them "on 
a venture," remembering, probably, his own irregular 
beginnings as a United States Senator. The claimants 
were seated without further discussion.^ 

On the following day eight standing committees were 
appointed — Fundamental and General Provisions; 
County Organization ; Legislative Department ; Execu- 
tive Department; Judiciary; Taxation and Finance; 
Education; Schedule. The convention transacted no 
more business this day, but adjourned to meet Friday, 
the 29th. 

By this time it had become apparent that the dele- 
gates were in real earnest in their attempt to make the 
new constitution more liberal than the one under which 
they had lived as Virginians. Such matters as popu- 
lar education, universal white male suffrage, voting by 
ballot, and internal improvements were given much 
attention. 

On November 30th Brown, of Kanawha, introduced 
the following resolution : '^Resolved, That the state of 
Kanawha ought to assume a just and equitable pro- 

* Later in the convention the delegate from Fayette County 
resigned and appointed his successor. In the discussion Mr. 
Pomeroy said: "Now, it is a singular thing, with a lot of Union 
soldiers in the county, a man comes here and claims to be a 
representative on this floor, endorsed by a single baker's dozen; 
but of the whole population of the county not a solitary man 
but thirteen on that paper." 

Mr. Bering: "Are we a regularly constituted deliberative 
body, regulated by law, or are we a mass meeting that any 
gentleman can come into and take a seat and draw pay from 
the treasury?" 



THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONTENTION 261 

portion of the state debt of Virginia ; and in doing so, 
to discriminate between its friends and foes, by first 
paying the bonds now held bona fide by her own loyal 
citizens; next, the bonds held bona fide by other loyal 
citizens of the United States not residents of the state 
of Kanawha ; and the excess, if any, to the other bond- 
holders, pro rata. Also, that it is unwise and impolitic 
to introduce the discussion of the slavery question into 
the deliberations of this convention." 

Monday, December 2nd, the Committee on Boun- 
daries reported. To the thirty-nine original counties 
had been added Pocahontas, Greenbrier, Monroe, Mer- 
cer, McDowell, Buchanan and Wise. Craig, Giles, 
Bland, Tazewell, Russell, Lee, Scott, Jefferson, Berke- 
ley, Morgan, Hampshire, Hardy, Pendleton, Highland, 
Bath, Alleghany, Clark, Warren, Shenandoah, Page, 
Rockingham, Augusta, Rockbridge, and Botetourt 
were to be given the opportunity of voting for annexa- 
tion to the new state April, 1862. 

The report was taken up and discussed section by 
section. Mr. Sensel moved that "Kanawha" be 
stricken out, stating, as his reason, that he was a Vir- 
ginian and proud of the name. Mr. Parker agreed and 
added that Kanawha would be confused with the county. 
A number of members testified to the unpopularity of 
the name with their constituents. Mass meetings had 
been held in many counties, protesting against it. 
With these objections Mr. Lamb, of Ohio County, had 
little sympathy, although he had lived in Virginia for 
thirty years. "During that time what have we received 



262 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

here but oppression and outrage from the state of Vir- 
ginia? What has been the policy of Virginia through- 
out? Are we going to keep that policy along with the 
name, when we came here for the very purpose of revo- 
lutionizing that policy in every respect almost in which 
it is possible for us to do so? No, gentlemen, no, I 
want to cut loose from these recollections. I have no 
hesitation in proclaiming to this convention and my 
constituents that there is nothing in the conduct of the 
state of Virginia to the people of western Virginia that 
entitles her or the name to our attachment." 

Mr. Caldwell remarked that western Virginia had 
been a distinct name for years. Mr. Willey said his 
people objected to "Kanawha" because it was hard to 
spell, while Mr. Lauck startled the other delegates by 
asserting that his constituents were not willing to have 
the new state at all if "Virginia" was stricken out. To 
this Mr. Van Winkle retorted that what he feared was 
that some of the gentlemen "intend to be Virginians 
after we have separated from Virginia. If we are so 
servile to old Virginia now that we are about casting 
off the fetters, if we cannot forget our servile habits, 
but must cringe and bow to old Virginia, I think. Sir, 
this movement had better stop precisely where it is 
now." The speaker concluded by suggesting that there 
was a "suspiciously strong affection for the flesh-pots 
of Egypt." 

Mr. Stuart replied to Mr. Van Winkle, displaying 
considerable warmth of feeling. His position was that 
Van Winkle and the others born outside the state of 



THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 263 

Virginia should not arrogate to themselves the respon- 
sibility of deciding the name of the new state.^ "It is 
a familiar name. It is a name to speak, that of West 
Virginia." 

Mr. Willey was confident the new convention could 
adopt a new name if it saw fit, as it had already changed 
the previous ordinance so as to include some additional 
counties. His attitude toward "W^est Virginia" was 
dictated solely by the wishes of his constituents. 

On the final vote the name "West Virginia" received 
thirty votes ; "Kanawha," nine ; "Western Virginia," 
two ; "Alleghany," two ; "Augusta," one. 

An argument now arose over the length of time a 
person should have to live in the state in order to qual- 
ify for voting. So liberal were the views of some of 
the members that Mr. Brown protested, alleging that 
the object seemed to be that of alluring voters from 
other states. He opposed such liberality because he 
"wanted people to come here to live, not merely to 
vote." His ideas did not prevail, however, and the 
length of residence was fixed at thirty days. 

On Wednesday, December 4th, the important ques- 
tion of the electoral franchise was discussed. At the 
outset it was evident that there was a strong movement 
on foot to disqualify all but known Union men. Said 
Mr. Caldwell, of Marshall County : "In my own county, 

*Mr. Van Winkle was a native of the state of New York, and 
attorney for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. It is evident that 
he was distrusted by the other members, for an undercurrent 
of hostility was apparent at all times when Mr. Van Winkle 
had the floor. 



264 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

in several counties that I think I could name, where the 
Secessionist element prevails, what will be the result in 
the formation of the new state? Why, Sir, where that 
element prevails, the Secessionists will override the 
Union party. They may go to the polls and elect 
officers, while the result will be that those persons so 
elected will refuse to qualify ; and thus the organization 
in these counties will be defeated." 

Mr. Willey stated that "the brave boys who are now 
standing up for these rights in the Union were of the 
poorer classes." Mr. Hagar brought out the informa- 
tion that in his county the people had been ordered to 
join the Confederacy — and did so. Mr. Parker de- 
clared roundly that men were "committing treason with 
as little compunction as they have in shooting squir- 
rels." Again Mr. Brown took the opposing view, by 
affirming that the proposed act would disfranchise a 
large number of Union men, and, "I dare say, many in 
this very house; for I have no doubt there are those in 
this house who have 'given aid and comfort to the re- 
bellion' by furnishing provisions and shelter to their 
friends and relatives in the rebel army." 

The following day the delegates debated the report 
of a committee which had advocated the viva voce 
method of voting. Mr. Stuart said he had never seen 
any good result from voting by ballot; that how a 
man voted was known anyhow. "I like this independent 
way of voting — coming up and declaring how we vote. 
It seems to me it inculcates principles of independence." 
He reminded his audience of the vote in May on seces- 



THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 265 

sion, and asked if there would not have been a different 
showing if voting by ballot had prevailed.^ 

Mr. Hagar declared that in his county only one vote 
out of one hundred and fifty had been against seces- 
sion.^ Union men had been overawed by the stronger 
rebels. If the citizens had been able to cast their bal- 
lots in secret, both Logan and Boone counties might 
have voted against secession. 

It may be remarked in passing that all speakers from 
Secessionist counties told the same story, apparently 
with the idea of winning the good will of the other dele- 
gates. However, either the Union majority was a fig- 
ment of their imagination or it was composed of a very 
pusillanimous set of men. Otherwise, the numerically 
weaker Secessionists would have been the ones intimi- 
dated. 

The question was dropped for the present, while the 
convention proceeded to consider the inclusion of Wise 
and Buchanan counties. Mr. Brown thought it a good 
thing, because no one desired to have a "little picayune 
state." They should adhere to "the good old American 
principle, which was to hold on to all the territory we 
get." And Mr. Stuart reminded the delegates that if 

*Mr. Stuart's meaning is puzzling, in view of the fact that 
he was speaking in opposition to the secret ballot. If he had 
been arguing in its favor, we might assume he meant to suggest 
that the open method of voting prevented Union men from 
voting against secession, where the Secessionists predominated. 
The sole inference remaining is that if the secret ballot had been 
used, more votes in the western counties would have been cast 
for secession. 

''The ofl&cial returns from Boone County do not confirm this 
statement. 



266 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

these counties were cut off the state would lose one 
representative in Congress. Mr. Pomeroy could not 
understand why they wanted to annex counties in which 
Secessionism ran rampant, to which Mr. Brown replied, 
meaningly, that "to cut off counties because they were 
for secession was a very dangerous game; and if you 
attempt to play it on principle I do not see where it 
would stop.'* -^ The motion to include was lost. 

The same question arose over McDowell County. 
Mr. Walker, with no apparent intention of being hu- 
morous, remarked that he had been there in June, and 
"had found quite a number of men who were Union in 
their hearts although they dared not say so." Quite 
the frankest man on the floor was Mr. Hall, of Marion 
County, who boldly spoke for the inclusion of all bor- 
der counties, in order to get a line with natural boun- 
daries. It was of no great importance whether they 
wanted to come in or not. This convention was the 
sovereign people of West Virginia, and was bound by 
no previous act. 

Mr. Carskadon stated that while only between sixty 
and seventy men had voted for representatives to the 
convention he felt sure that there were more Union 
men than that in the county. Mr. Stevenson said : "If 
I could be satisfied that these counties of Mercer, Mon- 
roe, Greenbrier, and Pocahontas were made up of any 
considerable number of loyal people, I would favor it. 

*A plain admission that the great majority of the counties 
in the proposed new state were Southern in their sympathies, 
and, consequently, opposed to cutting loose from Virginia. 



THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONTENTION 267 

But I have not been, and I am not, satisfied of the 
fact." Mr. Parker, to ease Mr. Stevenson's conscience, 
remarked that the convention as a whole represented 
but a small faction of the state; and Mr. Brown ad- 
duced the further information that they were including 
counties that had given large majorities for secession. 
The Union men in these counties were being protected 
by a Union army, composed of men from other states. 
In Logan, Boone and Wayne Counties a man who spoke 
in favor of the Union was taken to Richmond and tried 
for treason, said Mr. Brown. Yet thus far there had 
been no objection to including these counties. 

Mr. Willey was of the opinion that the convention 
had no right to add more counties, to which Mr. Hall 
retorted that the convention could do anything "because 
the whole proceedings were irregular. It has not been 
very long since some gentlemen who are here could not 
have come here, and the time is even yet that some gen- 
tlemen within counties included here are not here; and 
we know very well the reason why the counties, in refer- 
ence to which we are now proposing to take action, 
could not be represented here, are represented by very 
few votes, or by some means that is not exactly a vote 
at all." The convention, at any rate, said Mr. Hall, 
represented the people more closely than the legislature 
did. "At the time a certain portion of the citizens of 
the state of Virginia were enabled to congregate them- 
selves at the city of Wheeling and at a time when those 
in rebellion against the government held other parts, 
and being very impatient they went to work to form 



268 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

themselves into a new state including a few counties. 
Let me say a fact that is known, — that this thing com- 
menced at a time when some of the most prominent 
movers in the matter dared not go to their homes. As 
I before remarked, our necessity requires that if they 
are not with us in sentiment, in all events their terri- 
tory must be with us." Mr. Brown hereupon stated 
that before the people of the border counties could 
vote it would be necessary to station a Union Army 
there. 

The discussion as to the wisdom of absorbing Seces- 
sionist counties continued the following day. The 
large-state advocates were now in the saddle, and rode 
triumphantly through the opposition, who desired a 
small, compact state, composed of counties where there 
was at least a considerable Union minority. Said Mr. 
Willey : "The county of Calhoun spurns our invitation, 
it is said. The county of Nicholas spurns our invita- 
tion. That is her own fault, sir. She might have been 
represented here ; and if she sees proper to stay at home 
and allow us to fix it for her, she has no right to com- 
plain." 

An interesting sidelight is turned on the events of 
the preceding months by the remarks of Mr. Hagar: 

"I am informed by the delegate from Wayne, not- 
withstanding Ziegler had a regiment there, that all the 
elections had to be guarded by his regiment. I do not 
know how many elections were held in Cabell County. 
However, they held one somewhere, and the county is 
represented. Boone, which has eight places of holding 



THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 269 

elections, by a detachment being sent from Kanawha 
held an election at two precincts. The returns are not 
here; the man I sent may have been captured. If it 
required a military force to hold an election, if Cabell 
County, which borders on the Ohio River, had to have a 
military force to hold an election there; if Boone had 
to have a military force to hold an election at two 
points; if a detachment went up and held an election 
there, and got into a comer of Raleigh and held an 
election there, with what difficulty are^ the counties 
represented !" 

The speaker closed by saying that he knew person- 
ally the people of those counties were opposed to the 
new state. Mr. Soper confirmed this, and added that 
the earlier conventions were all irregular bodies; that 
the members of the so-called legislature were not legally 
chosen, and that they violated their instructions when 
they provided for the formation of a new state instead 
of merely reconstructing the old state. The people, 
thus far, had never indicated that they wished to sep- 
arate from old Virginia. Mr. Soper seemed to think 
that although most of the counties included in the 
boundaries of the proposed new state were full of Se- 
cessionists, these persons would finally become recon- 
ciled to the new state — certainly, if the South lost.^ 

Mr. Van Winkle stated that he doubted "if there 
were any counties this side of the AUeghanies where 
there were nothing but Secessionists." ^ Mr. Stuart, of 

* Mr. Soper was referred to by the chairman as "the gentle- 
man from New York now representing Tyler County." 
*The North had been led to believe that there were nothing 



270 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

Doddridge County, said that his was one of the strong- 
est Union counties in the state; Union regiments were 
in complete control; yet it was impossible to get a 
majority of the voters to go to the polls and vote on 
the question of endorsing the new state movement. 

Mr. Simmons, of Randolph County, was positive that 
there were some Union men in his county, and also in 
Pendleton and Hardy. An election had been held, he 
stated, in one corner of Tucker County, by a Union 
company, and a member had been chosen to the state 
legislature. Mr. Carskadon frankly admitted that "at 
the precinct at which I was elected (they did not know 
at the time I was a candidate) there were but thirty- 
nine votes cast." 

Mr. Lamb, of Ohio County, whose Unionism could 
not be doubted, declared that out of two thousand 
voters in Hampshire County, one hundred and ninety- 
five votes had been cast and he had heard that of these 
one hundred were cast by soldiers. Mr. Carskadon 
confirmed this and added that only thirty-nine were 
the votes of citizens of the state. 

So frank were these admissions that the people of 
the western portion of Virginia were Southern in their 
sympathies that the convention felt it necessary to 
reject a motion to have the debates published. It may 
be added that they remain unpublished to this day. 

January 7, 1862, a petition from Calhoun County 
was read as follows: 

but Unionists this side of the AUeghanies. Mr. Van Winkle 
/lere admits that the Unionists were few in number. 



THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 271 

"The humble memorial of the undersigned qualified 
voters in and for the County of Calhoun, respectfully 
represent that they were unable to hold an election for 
a delegate to your convention, as they desired to do 
and would have done, but for the following reasons : 
There is no sheriff, clerk or justices in our county, and 
no court has been held in said county since June last ; 
all the county officers are or have been engaged in the 
rebellion, so that there was no one to hold an election. 
The undersigned compose nearly the whole loyal voters 
in the said county, for, in fact, at the election upon 
the ordinance of secession, there were but fifty votes 
cast in said county against it." 

The petition was unanimously granted, Mr. Van 
Winkle remarking that it would not do to hold too 
strictly to the law. 

A similar proceeding was enacted the following day, 
' when the convention seated a delegate from Logan 
i County, whose credentials consisted of a petition signed 
I by fifteen persons representing six families. After this 
j there could be no pretense of legality, for in this case 
I the delegate lived in Kanawha, not Logan County, 
J where, according to his own statement, there was to be 
j found no one who was willing to run the risk of repre- 
I senting Logan County. 

I January 13th Mr. Sinsel made some extremely illu- 
j minating admissions, while the subject of the apportion- 
' ment of representatives was under discussion. He re- 
j ferred to the border counties as "deadly Secessionist in 
I sentiment and feeling," and predicted that after the 
rebellion only Secessionists would be elected to public 



272 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

office.^ "Who denies that McDowell, Wyoming, Ral- 
eigh, Calhoun, Gilmer, Braxton, Clay, Tucker, Ran- 
dolph, Webster, Nicholas, Boone, Logan, Pocahontas, 
Roane, Wirt, Monroe, and Greenbrier — add to that 
Barbour and many others — are all dominated by the 
spirit of the rebellion?'^ 

It is interesting to observe that the manuscript 
record of the debates contains no answer or denial of 
this very serious allegation. Had it been otherwise 
than true, had there been the slightest doubt of the sen- 
timent of the people of these and other unnamed coun- 
ties, Mr. Sinsel would have discovered that he had dis- 
turbed a hornet's nest. The strong Union men in the 
convention would have accepted the challenge, had 
there been any tenable premises upon which to base 
their argument. That Mr. Sinsel's charges were recog- 
nized as correct is proven by the fact that after his 
speech the discussion narrows down to the question of 
how the apportionment of representatives in the legis- 
lature could be arranged so as to give the larger Seces- 
sionist counties as little power as possible. 

The slavery question, as was anticipated, aroused 
heated discussion. Mr. Battelle, a Methodist minister 
and a native of Ohio, introduced a series of resolutions 
providing, first, that no slaves should come into the 
state for permanent residence after the adoption of the 

* His prediction was verified. The immediate effect of the 
successive Amnesty Proclamations of President Johnson, 1865, 
1867, 1868, was the establishment of the Democrats in power, 
and this power they held almost without interruption for thirty 
years. 



THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 273 

constitution; second, that the legislature should pro- 
vide for the mitigation of the evils of slavery until July 
4, 1862, when the institution should be abolished. The 
author of these resolutions later modified his first prop- 
osition so that all children born of slave parents after 
July 4, 1865, should be free, and that the people 
of the state, when they voted on the constitution, should 
also vote on the question of gradual emancipation. 

There was, however, plenty of feeling in the conven- 
tion against the abolition of slavery in any form, and 
the body declined to go on record as favoring such leg- 
islation. They did incorporate into the constitution a 
clause whereby slaves and free negroes should not be 
permitted to enter the state. 

The first draft of the first constitution of West Vir- 
ginia resembled very much the organic law of the old 
state, but there are some notable points of divergence, 
all in the direction of democratic progress. Voting by 
ballot took the place of the viva voce method, the reg- 
istration of voters was provided for, and the legislature 
was instructed to establish a system of free common 
schools. 

The fourth Thursday in April, 1862, was designated 
as the day upon which the constitution was to be sub- 
mitted to the voters of the state, and commissioners 
were appointed to make the necessary arrangements. 
In the event of the ratification of the constitution, the 
returns were to be reported to the legislature and its 
consent obtained to the separation. This done, Con- 
gress was to be asked to admit the new state. 



274 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

The constitution was adopted by the suspiciously 
large majority of 20,622 to 440. In order to mak^ 
the result more imposing, commissioners were sent out 
to the various camps so that the soldiers would be 
permitted to vote. In this manner citizens of Penn- 
sylvania, Ohio, and Indiana were enabled to assist the 
framers of the new constitution. -"^ The vote in some 
of the counties was reported as follows: Ohio, 1,805 
to 8 ; Marshall, 1,433 to 56 ; Hancock, 373 to 5 ; Hardy, 
76 to ; Morgan, 362 to ; Pendleton, 181 to ; Pleas- 
ants, 253 to 0; Randolph, 167 to 13; Roane, 159 to 0; 
Tucker, 45 to 1 ; Wayne, 85 to 2 ; Marion, 965 to 3 ; 
Lewis, 596 to 4; Wood, 1,222 to 1 ; Harrison, 1,074 to 
7; Monongalia, 1,415 to 128; Taylor, 716 to 5; Bar- 
bour, 471 to 0; Brooke, 448 to 1; Cabell, 106 to 0; 
Gilmer, 383 to 1 ; Hampshire, 75 to 9. No returns 
were ever received from Calhoun, Greenbrier, Logan, 
McDowell, Mercer, Monroe, Preston, Raleigh and 
Wyoming counties. The four northern Panhandle 
counties furnished more than one third of the entire 
civilian vote for the constitution. The eastern Pan- 
handle cast a total of five hundred and thirty votes. 
Along the border of Virginia only one county, Hardy, 
reported that a poll had been taken. The measure was 
practically adopted by a vote of six counties and the 
silent protests of more than twenty other counties were 
passed unheeded. It is a poor argument to say that 
many of these counties were in possession of the Con- 
federates at the time of the election, for this is equiva- 
* The soldiers' vote was announced as 7,579 to 131. 



THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 275 

lent to saying that they were controlled by a majority 
of their own citizens. Yet if four hundred and seventy- 
one persons in Barbour County were permitted to vote, 
why were not the other qualified voters permitted to do 
the same? Why did the poll show the curious anomaly 
of a practically unanimous vote in the strongest Seces- 
sionist counties? All these questions and others pre- 
sent themselves for serious consideration, and the more 
they are studied the more convinced must one become 
that the present state of West Virginia is composed of 
counties a majority of which were opposed to the 
division of the state.^ 

An extra session of the legislature was called for 
May 5, 186S, and on that day thirty-one delegates and 
ten Senators came together, for the purpose of carry- 
ing out that section of the United States Constitution 
which says that no new state shall be formed out of an 

*A letter to the Intelligencer, Apr. 30, from Braxton County- 
reads: "The election was a mere farce, a thing done in the corner 
by those who feared the light and wished to possess themselves of 
power not for the sake of being useful to their country and 
fellow-citizens but for selfish ends alone. . . . Not more than one 
hundred votes were polled in a county of some 1,100 voters and 
our legislature was elected by a still smaller number of votes." 

The Intelligencer, the same day, prints a letter from a 
Colonel in the Union army stationed in one of the interior coun- 
ties, to the effect that he had been instructed to prevent people 
from voting against the new-state constitution. A letter to the 
Wheeling Press, Nov. 27, 1862, declares that there had not been 
a free election in West Virginia since the delegates had been 
elected to the Richmond Convention. Not one fifth of the 
normal vote of the county had been cast at any election. The 
writer asserts that it was dangerous to vote against any measure 
in which the new state was interested. "Could there be a fair 
expression of the people within the bounds of the new state, I 
do not doubt that the vote would be overwhelmingly against it." 



276 THE DISRUPTION OF VERGINIA 

existing state without the consent of the latter. These 
forty-one men were held to be capable of acting for a 
million white people of Virginia.-^ 

The Governor in his message made no effort to dic- 
tate the course which should be pursued by the legisla- 
ture, although he did attempt to give reasons why their 
assent should be given. He attacked the position of 
those who pronounced the whole affair to be a revolu- 
tionary proceeding. His attempt to show that all con- 
stitutional and legal forms had been and would in the 
future be complied with led him into a maze of twisted 
thoughts and illogical reasoning. Answering the 
charge that the new state would be established on an 
act of revolution, he says: "Those who urge this ob- 
jection do not understand the history, geography, and 
social relations of the state." ^ The reader may well 
ask what these things had to do with an abstract ques- 
tion of political theory. However, the situation did not 
call for close reasoning and clear thinking, for the leg- 
islature had made up its mind long before. After going 
through the formality of appointing a committee to 
consider the question, it gave its consent to the forma- 

* Horace Greeley in his "American Conflict" makes a typical 
defense of the action of the legislature in assenting to the division 
of Virginia. He says: "This action was taken throughout on the 
assumption that the loyal people of a state constitute the state; 
that traitors and rebels who repudiate all respect for and loyalty 
to the constitution and government of the country have no right 
to control that government and that those people of any state 
who heartily recognize and faithfully discharge their obligations 
. . . have a right to full and perfect protection from the Re- 
public." P. 519. 

^ Wheeling Intelligencer, May 6, 1862. 



THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 277 

tion of a new state in the name of and as the represen- 
tatives of the sovereign people of Virginia.^ 

* The act reads : "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That 
the consent of the legislature of Virginia be and the same is 
hereby given to the formation and erection of the state of West 
Virginia within the jurisdiction of this state to include the 

counties of , according to the boundaries and under the 

provisions set forth in the constitution for the said state of 
West Virginia and the schedule thereto annexed, proposed by 
the convention which assembled at Wheeling on the 26th day of 
November, 1861. Second, Be it further enacted. That the con- 
sent of the legislature be and the same is hereby given that 
the counties of Berkeley, Jefferson, and Frederick shall be in- 
cluded in and form part of the state of West Virginia, when- 
ever the voters of said counties shall ratify and assent to the 
said constitution at an election held for the purpose at such 
time and under such regulations as the commissioners named in 
the said schedule may prescribe. Third, Be it further enacted, 
That this act shall be transmitted by the Executive to the Sena- 
tors and Representatives of this Commonwealth in Congress, 
together with a certified original of the said constitution and 
schedule, and the said Senators and Representatives are hereby 
requested to use their endeavors to obtain the consent of Con- 
gress to the admission of the state of West Virginia into the 
Union. Fourth, This act shall be enforced from and after its 
passage." — Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 3rd Session, Part 
I, p. 39. 



CHAPTER XVII 

IREEGULAR CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS 

In the early part of 1862, before the West Virginia 
bill was ready to be introduced into Congress, the 
House of Representatives, after quite a contest, refused 
to seat two men claiming to have been elected to the 
house from the first and seventh congressional districts 
of Virginia. The western part of the state had disre- 
garded that section of the ordinance of secession which 
forbade the election of representatives to Congress and 
had elected its Congressmen in the regular manner. 
These men had been seated without contest.^ The cases 
of Charles H. Upton and Joseph Segar were different. 
The latter claimed to have been elected from the first 
district under the proclamation issued by Pierpoint, ap- 
pointing the fourth Tuesday in October as the day 
when special elections should be held for the purpose 
of filling the vacancies that existed in the Virginia dele- 
gation to Congress.^ It was admitted that the Seces- 
sionists controlled all but the two northwestern dis- 

^They were Messrs. Brown, Whalley, and Carlile. After 
Carlile's election to the Senate, Jacob Blair was chosen to fill 
the vacancy. 

^Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, Part I, 
p. 728. 

278 



IRREGULAR CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS 279 

tricts, but according to the prevailing theory the loyal 
citizens, no matter how small their number might be, 
constituted the electorate. Mr. Segar's election had 
been unanimous. The case was referred to the Com- 
mittee of Elections, which made its report Feb. 10, 
1862.^ After reviewing the events in West Virginia 
leading up to the establishment of a provisional gov- 
ernment, the committee presented the election returns 
and showed that Mr. Segar had received twenty-five 
votes, while none had been cast for his opponent. The 
poll had been taken at Hampton, Virginia, and was cer- 
tified to by the clerk and two freeholders. Pierpoint 
thereupon signed the certificate of election. The com- 
mittee expressed the opinion that the Wheeling con- 
vention had exceeded its power in continuing to act as 
a legislative body coordinate with the legislature. Its 
functions ceased the moment the new government took 
on form and life. Thus the act of the convention pro- 
viding for a special election was a usurpation of the 
duties of the legislature. Even assuming that up to this 
point the proceedings were regular, what followed was 
clearly irregular. Instead of calling upon the sheriffs 
to conduct the election as prescribed by law, the Gov- 
ernor in his proclamation "entreated the loyal voters to 
hold an election." Mr. Segar admitted that there was 
no poll taken anywhere but at Hampton, and frankly 
confessed that he would not have known of the Gov- 
ernor's proclamation had it not been that a certain 
man, stopping over in Hampton, had read it in the 
^ Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, pp. 727-728. 



280 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

National Intelligencer. He informed Mr. Segar of the 
fact and the latter decided to become a candidate. The 
committee held that under the circumstances the con- 
testant could have no claim to a seat in the House. 

Segar's defense of his claim deserves to rank as a 
great piece of congressional humor. The issue, he said, 
was not whether he should be seated; that was of no 
importance whatsoever. The real question involved the 
right of a loyal citizen to sit in the House of Repre- 
sentatives. It was true that some of the petty forms 
were not complied with, but they were swept away by 
the old maxim de minimis non curat lex. The Wheeling 
Convention, in his opinion, could do anything the sov- 
ereign people could do, but even if it could not the sit- 
uation would not be altered, for Governor Pierpoint 
had signed his election certificate, and all people knew 
that Pierpoint was the lawful Governor of Virginia. As 
for the smallness of the vote cast, the House could not 
take this into consideration while it had officially recog- 
nized the Wheeling government which had been set up 
by a very small minority of the people. Mr. Dawes, of 
Massachusetts, effectually disposed of any further ar- 
guments the petitioner might have presented by stating 
that the only pertinent question was the legality of the 
election. The convention organized the loyal legisla- 
ture and put it under the constitution and laws of Vir- 
ginia ; then it proceeded to act as though no legisla- 
ture existed. In the case at hand twenty-five men living 
near a hotel kept by the claimant cast their votes with- 
out form of law. "It is a mockery to representation it- 



IRREGULAR CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS 281 

self," said Mr. Dawes. "It is a mockery to the free- 
dom of election." The committee's report was adopted 
and Mr. Segar was refused a seat in the House.^ 

Upton's case was reported from the committee Jan. 
30, 1862, with adverse recommendation. The contes- 
tant had presented his credentials at the opening of the 
special session in July, as representative of the seventh 
district of Virginia. No objection had been raised until 
December 9, 1861, when a Mr. S. F. Beach appeared, 
contesting Mr. Upton's right to the seat. February 
26th the House took up the consideration of the com- 
mittee's report. Beach, in his petition, alleged that on 
May 23rd not a single poll had been opened, owing 
partly to the presence of a large military force. Thus 
Upton could not have been legally elected, even though 
he had been a citizen of Virginia which, the petitioner 
said, he was not. Upon the 24th of October an election 
was held in accordance with Pierpoint's proclamation 
and a small vote was cast, all for the petitioner. Up- 
ton should be unseated — first, because no regular elec- 
tion had been conducted on May 23rd, and second, be- 
cause Upton was a citizen of Ohio and could not repre- 
sent the state of Virginia. 

Mr. Worcester brushed aside the second objection 

^ Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, Part I. On 
Feb. 19, 1862, Mr. Segar wrote a letter to Governor Pierpoint in 
which he made the following suggestion, to be acted upon in case 
the legislature did not prescribe a time and place for elections 
to Congress: "I suggest that in the writ you name the place for 
the meeting at Old Point Comfort and make the day the 21st of 
March. ... As soon as received I shall proceed to . . ." This 
was de minimis non curat lex with a vengeance. 



282 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

and declared that the real question was one of fact, 
not whether a legal election could have taken place at 
the time, but whether it was physically possible under 
the circumstances. No one doubted that the act an- 
nulling the election laws was a usurpation but it was 
effective at any rate. There was no evidence to show 
that any attempt had been made to comply with the 
laws of Virginia prescribing the mode of conducting 
elections in the present case. The contestant brought 
no certificate from the Governor or from any election 
board. He had not shown that a single legal vote had 
been cast for him, although there were documents ex- 
hibiting the fact that Mr, Beach had declared his 
candidacy and that ninety-five persons had cast their 
votes for him. These documents were not attested to 
in legal form. Mr. Upton, however, rested his claim 
upon a poll of ten votes taken in Ball's Cross Road, 
Alexandria County, and certified to by a justice of the 
peace. This was of no more value, said Mr. Worcester, 
than the other alleged poll. The committee had unani- 
mously agreed that Upton was not entitled to a seat in 
the House. 

Although some of the Representatives, fearing for 
their own seats, opposed the committee's report, Mr. 
Dawes bore down their objections by stating that 
Upton had come there "without the certificate of the 
Governor, without a certificate of an election board, 
and without the certificate of any man touching his 
right to his seat. He came here and induced the Clerk 
of the House to put his name upon the list of members. 



IRREGULAR CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS 283 

He was sworn in without so much as a vote of the 
House upon the question." The last word for the de- 
fense was the reply of Mr. Sedgwick, who brought out 
the fact that none of the Virginia Representatives then 
in Congress had been elected according to the laws of 
the state. They had been admitted on the ground that 
full compliance was impossible, and that at such a time 
technicalities should be passed over. The chief point 
of difference between the case of the Representatives 
from western Virginia and that of Mr. Upton was that 
the latter had received fewer votes. But no law could 
be found anywhere prescribing the minimum number of 
votes a candidate must receive. To this Mr. Dawes 
retorted that the essential thing was not the number 
of votes but how they had been cast. The crux of the 
whole situation was that no legal election had taken 
place or could take place under existing circumstances. 
In this opinion the House concurred and the action of 
the committee unseating Mr. Upton was sustained.-^ 

Two similar contests took place in the third session 
of the Thirty-seventh Congress when J. B. McCloud 
and W. W. Wing appeared, claiming to have been 
elected from the second congressional district of Vir- 
ginia. The election was conducted under the authority 
of three proclamations, one by General Dix command- 
ing the department of Virginia, another by General 
Vielie had permitted all males over twenty-one years 
of age to vote regardless of residence. McCloud and 
Wing, together with a Mr. McKenzie claiming a seat as 
* Congressional Olobe, 37th Congress, Part II, p. 1010. 



284 THE DISBUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

representative from the seventh district of Virginia, 
were refused seats in the House. ^ 

It was unfortunate for the Federal Government that 
such a confused situation existed in Virginia. The ac- 
tion of the loyal citizens in the west had to be sustained, 
and yet it would not do openly to disregard the state 
constitution. As far as possible the letter of the law 
must be complied with, as it would be inconsistent on 
the part of the central authorities to uphold any breach 
of the organic law while engaged in a contest against 
a portion of the United States which, according to the 
theory, had violated the United States Constitution. 
Trouble began when the rump legislature was recog- 
nized as the legislature of Virginia and the Senators it 
elected were accepted. Congress was thus put under 
the obligation of recognizing the Pierpoint govern- 
ment as the real and not the provisional government of 
Virginia. While not admitting it, everyone knew that 
the proceedings in West Virginia were justifiable only 
on the ground of expediency and at any other time 
would have been quickly disposed of. Reviewed to-day, 
the arguments in support of the Wheeling government 
sound singularly hollow and insincere, very much as 
though they were brought out not for the purpose of 
convincing the opposition but with the idea of making 
an outward show of defense. Had the administration 
pursued a straight course and erected a military gov- 
ernment in West Virginia, that section might never 
have been able to set up a separate state, but the Fed- 
* Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, Part II, p. 1037. 



IRREGULAR CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS 285 

eral Government could not now be accused of aiding and 
abetting one section of a state in disregarding all con- 
stitutions and precedents in breaking away from that 
state without its consent. 



CHAPTER XVIII 

THE WEST VIRGINIA BILL IN THE U. S. SENATE 

May 29, 1862, Congress received its first official in- 
timation that West Virginia would apply for admis- 
sion into the Union. On that day Senator W^illey 
brought the matter to the attention of the Senate by 
presenting a memorial from the so-called legislature of 
Virginia, asking that its consent be given to the forma- 
tion of a new state within the boundaries of Virginia.^ 
The legislature not only gave its consent to the divi- 
sion of the state, but urged the Senators and Represen- 
tatives from Virginia to make every effort to over- 
come the opposition in Congress.^ Never before in our 
history has the country witnessed the spectacle of a 
state legislature petitioning Congress to agree to the 
cutting up of the dominion for which it was supposed 
to make laws.^ Another memorial presented purported 
to come from the people of West Virginia. It recited 

* Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, Part III, p. 2415. 

^Laws of West Virginia 1861-66. Acts of the General Assem- 
bly passed at the extra session held May 6, 1863. 

' When the legislature passed the act giving its consent to the 
erection of a new state, it organized itself into a committee to 
arouse greater general interest in the matter. Representatives 
from Braxton, Preston, Clay, Nicholas, and Morgan counties 
pledged that their districts would give a unanimous vote for 
the new state. — Wheeling Intelligencer, May 16, 1862. 

286 



WEST VIRGINIA BILL IN THE U. S. SENATE 287 

the wrongs that West Virginia had endured for forty 
years ; enlarged on the good effect which the admission 
of West Virginia would have on the country as a whole; 
and declared finally that some "wolves in sheep's cloth- 
ing" had gotten into the convention and prevented the 
passage of a free-state constitution. This was unfor- 
tunate, but unless Congress admitted West Virginia at 
once there was grave danger that by the time the legis- 
lature reassembled there would be sufficient representa- 
tion from the eastern counties and the Valley to rescind 
the former action consenting to division. The peti- 
tioners frankly admitted that the entire state outside 
the immediate portion concerned was opposed to separa- 
tion, even in those districts where the Union feeling was 
strong. As for the constitutional objections, Letcher 
and the disloyal members of the assembly had abdicated 
and the reorganizers had exercised their rights as the 
sovereign people to form a government. While it was 
true that the convention did not represent the whole 
state, that was not the fault of the loyal people. All 
were given an opportunity to respond. The question 
of the right of one portion of a state to secede from 
the rest did not arise. Congress simply had to decide 
whether or not it would recognize and protect a loyal 
community which needed protection.-^ 

* Wheeling Intelligencer, May 30, 1862. This paper asked for 
the admission of West Virginia, first, because it was a right 
the people were entitled to from the natural situation of their 
territory; second, a government was needed to develop the re- 
sources of the west; third, the two sections of the state could 
not get along together; fourth, the west would receive even 
worse treatment after the war if the state was not divided; 



288 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

Senator Willey in presenting the matter sketched the 
course of events since the Richmond Convention. Ha 
denounced the action of the Richmond leaders in not 
waiting for the ratification of the ordinance of seces- 
sion before putting the state on a war footing, and 
lauded the zeal of the western Virginians in refusing to 
go out of the Union. His remark that the delegates to 
the May convention were risking their lives in sitting 
in the Wheeling assembly was rather disingenuous, since 
Wheeling was in entire control of the Union men. 
Willey's attempt to make heroes out of the delegates 
was a bold misrepresentation of facts, for none knew 
any better than Willey that any danger which threat- 
ened the members came from within their body and not 
from without. The speaker entered into an explana- 
tion of the actions of the restored government, quoting 
Governor Pierpoint to the effect that they had made 
only one change in the state constitution} The Senate 
was told that the government organized by the June 
convention was for the whole state of Virginia and as 
such was recognized by the Federal authorities. In 
August an adjourned session of the convention passed 

fifth, it would be saddled with a war debt; sixth, "because we 
have complied with all the formalities required by the Consti- 
tution of the United States." 

* Willey did not think it necessary to explain that this one 
change which had been so blithely made was that of reducing 
the number of members in the General Assembly necessary to 
constitute a quorum. This was the only change needed in order, 
to give a show of legality to the actions of the legislature. If 
the constitution could be changed in this one particular, it could 
be just as easily altered in any way the Wheeling government 
saw fit. 



WEST VIRGINIA BILL IN THE U. S. SENATE 289 

an ordinance, providing for the formation of a new 
state and the submission of the question to the voters. 
The latter had given their consent almost unanimously ; 
the legislature was persuaded to agree to the division 
of the state; the constitution had been drawn up, and 
the question was now before Congress. Mr. Willey 
gave an exhaustive list of reasons why the two sections 
of Virginia could never live in harmony, but when he 
declared that the passage of the West Virginia bill 
through Congress would "send a thrill of joy through 
S00,000 hearts" he was making a statement which he 
knew to be absolutely false. 

Upon request of Mr. Sumner the question of the 
admission of West Virginia was referred to the Terri- 
torial Committee, of which Mr. Wade of Ohio was 
chairman. On June 23rd the bill was reported and 
advanced to a second reading. Three days later it was 
read a second time and taken up in Committee of the 
Whole.^ An analysis of the Senate bill shows that 
some one had taken advantage of the committee's un- 
familiarity with the situation in West Virginia, for not 
only were the forty-eight counties included, as had been 
provided for in the original act of the legislature, but 
there were added the counties of Berkeley, Jefferson, 
Clark, Warren, Frederick, Page, Shenandoah, Rock- 
ingham, Augusta, Highland, Bath, Rockbridge, Bote- 
tourt, Craig, and Alleghany. The reported bill in- 
cluded a provision that after the fourth day of July, 

^Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd session, Part IV, 
p. 2942. 



290 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

1863, children born of slaves were to be free. The vari- 
ous counties were to elect representatives to a consti- 
tutional convention, which should not have the power to 
change the boundaries of the state as outlined in the 
Senate bill. It has been asserted that the purpose of 
the restrictions placed upon the framers of the consti- 
tution was to insure its rejection by the people,-^ but 
judging from the poll taken on the first constitution it 
seems almost certain that at the time any constitution 
would have been declared adopted. It is beyond ques- 
tion that the people of the Valley counties would have 
refused to take any part in the matter, even if they 
had been permitted to do so. John S. Carlile is pre- 
sumed to have been the author of the first Senate bill.^ 
His public career since the May convention had been 
full of surprises. Elected to the United States Senate 
as the ablest Union man in the section, he first exhibited 
a change of heart in the August session of the conven- 
tion, although at that time he had been opposed to the 
inclusion of the Valley counties.^ Now he proposed 
taking in more than the most ardent large-state advo- 
cates had dreamed of. In view of his former actions in 
support of the new state, it is not easy to believe that 
Carlile was designing to prevent the passage of the 
bill in the Senate; but what other conclusion can be 
arrived at when the facts of the case are presented? In 

^Granville Hall, "The Rending of Virginia," p. 460. 

"^ Carlile was a member of the Committee on Territories. 

^ He had been opposed even to the admittance of the eastern 
Panhandle counties on the ground that they held too many 
slaves. 



WEST VIRGINIA BILL IN THE U. S. SENATE 291 

a speech at Wheeling some time later he declared that 
he would have voted for the original bill had it not been 
for the abolition provision, to which he had always 
been opposed.^ But if this were true, why did his own 
bill in the Senate committee contain an emancipation 
clause ? 

Senator Sumner, after the bill had been read, at once 
served notice that he would fight the measure so long 
as it did not contain a clause abolishing slavery at some 
time in the near future. He then made a motion to 
insert a clause by which slavery was to be abolished 
altogether after July 4, 1863. Mr. Hale remarked 
that it would be a singular thing if the Senate, after 
admitting many states whose constitutions made slavery 
perpetual, should decline to admit the first state which 
had provided for the ultimate extinction of slavery. 
Mr. Willey declared that the Senator from Massachu- 
setts was not familiar with the situation in West Vir- 
ginia. The 8,000 slaves were mainly house servants, 
who would be the very ones to suffer by immediate eman- 
cipation. The speaker now revealed the fact that he 
had not been consulted when the West Virginia bill was 
being drawn up, for he expressed surprise that the fif- 
teen counties of the Valley were to be taken in, after 
a convention of the people of West Virginia had de- 
clared that the Alleghanies should constitute the divid- 
ing line. The new counties contained 140,409 white 

^ The Intelligencer, which reported Carlile's speech in defense 
of his action, said: "No man ever seemed more conscious of the 
bad part which he had played." 



292 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

inhabitants and 31,937 slaves. The former were a unit 
against the new state and the latter would only add to 
its difficulties. To unite the Trans-Alleghany with the 
Valley would be like tying two cats by the tail. They 
would be forever fighting each other. Mr. Wade ad- 
mitted that the bill was open to much criticism, but 
averred that it had not been approved by the commit- 
tee; it would serve their purpose of bringing up some- 
thing which could be used as the basis of discussion. 
He objected to the emancipation clause as it stood, be- 
cause it would make free a person born one day after 
July 4, 1863, and make slave one born the day before. 
A graduated system of emancipation was, in his opin- 
ion, far better. The present bill should not be passed, 
but the Senate would do wrong in imposing severe and 
unprecedented conditions upon the proposed new state. 
Further consideration was postponed until July 7th, 
when Willey attempted to have the Senate defer all 
prior orders and take up the bill. He declared that the 
state stood "with her heart bleeding; with all her in- 
dustrial and commercial interests prostrate," and that 
unless some relief were given the Union men must take 
their families and find homes in the west. The Senate 
refused to believe that West Virginia was bleed- 
ing to death, and IMr. Willey's appeal went un- 
heeded. 

July 14th Mr. Wade persuaded his colleagues to 
take up the West Virginia bill again. Recurring to Mr. 
Sumner's amendment, the yeas and nays were ordered, 
with the result that the amendment was rejected by a 



WEST VIRGINIA BILL IN THE U. S. SENATE 293 

vote of eleven to twenty-four.^ The debate now cen- 
tered around Mr. Wade's proposal that not only should 
slave children born after July 4, 1863, be free, but that 
all slaves under twenty-one at the time aforesaid should 
be free when they reached twenty-one years of age. Mr. 
Willey urged with some show of reason that the chief 
effect of such a clause would be the transference of all 
slaves under twenty-one to the far south. Slaveholders 
would not stand idly by and permit their property to be 
taken away by process of law when they could prevent 
it. Moreover, the Secessionists in the state would use 
the abolition clause as a means to prevent the ratifica- 
tion of the constitution, which could only mean that the 
new state would never be formed. Carlile gave unmis- 
takable evidence of his opposition to the proposed bill 
by proposing an amendment, whereby the ordinance to 
be effective must be ratified by a vote of the majority of 
the voters of West Virginia. Mr. Willey at once at- 
tacked the suggestion as one calculated to destroy all 
hope of forming a new state, since under the circum- 
stances it would be impossible to get out anything like 
a full vote. Carlile answered that all he desired was 
the assurance that the people of West Virginia really 
did wish to break away from the old state. So far there 
had been no vote to indicate that such was their pref- 
erence.^ A majority of the voting population within 

* Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd session, Part IV, 
p. 3308. 

^ Carlile had no doubt of the feeling of the people when he 
was a member of the Wheeling conventions. No one was louder 
in his assertion that the people of the state were eager for 
separation. 



294 THE DISKUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

the boundaries of West Virginia had never assented di- 
rectly to any proposition put up to them so far. The 
erection of imaginary lines between the sections of Vir- 
ginia would serve no purpose in itself. Replying to Mr. 
Pomeroy, who remarked that Carlile's evident purpose 
was to put off the measure until another session and 
added that if the people of West Virginia did not send 
Senators favorable to it they could not expect to have 
the bill passed, Carlile returned that they would lose 
no time, since the new state could not be admitted be- 
fore the following January and Congress would meet 
in December. If by that time the people of West Vir- 
ginia had drawn up a new constitution more in accord 
with the ideas of the Senate, why could not the measure 
be acted upon and the state admitted? No time need 
be lost. In a moment of candor Carlile informed his 
colleagues that eleven of the counties west of the Alle- 
ghanies had never been represented in any of the Wheel- 
ing conventions or in the reorganized legislature. 
Three other counties had sent but one man ; so it could 
truly be said that at least one third of the proposed 
new state had expressed no desire to leave Virginia. 
Carlile was asked if he meant to assert that the con- 
vention did not represent the whole people of West 
Virginia. To this he replied that, while the chaotic 
condition of some of the counties has something to do 
with the light vote cast, even in the counties free from 
rebel troops little interest had been taken in any of the 
elections. 

Mr. Wade expressed his surprise that these things 



WEST VIRGINIA BILL IN THE U. S. SENATE 295 

were not brought out by Carlile in committee. For 
the first time the Senate was being told that the Wheel- 
ing Convention did not represent the people of West 
Virginia. 

Mr. Willey now offered as an amendment the bill 
introduced into the House by Mr. Brown, containing 
the original gradual emancipation clause and providing 
that no slaves should be brought into the state for per- 
manent residence. Mr. Lane moved an amendment to 
the amendment that all slaves under ten years of age 
on the 4th day of July, 1863 should be free on reaching 
the age of twenty-one years, and all between the ages 
of ten and twenty-one should be free when they became 
twenty-five years old. Both amendments were ac- 
cepted.^ Senator Trumbull, who had consistently op- 
posed the whole proposition, now recapitulated the 
case of the opposition. The general government had 
need of the present organization calling itself the gov- 
ernment of Virginia, which state, if it was further re- 
claimed, would need the provisional government of 
Wheeling. Again, there was no getting away from the 
fact that a state was being admitted in which slavery 
would exist for several generations. The formation of 
a new state would be of no assistance to the loyal citi- 
zens of West Virginia, since their arms could not there- 
by be made more effective against the rebels. Internal 
war would not cease necessarily after the admission of 

^Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd session. Part IV, 
p. 3316. 

Carlile and Willey both voted in the negative. 



296 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

West Virginia to statehood. "When this war shall 
have subsided and we shall have a settlement of the 
controversies which are now pending, who can tell the 
embarrassments that will arise out of our having divided 
Virginia at this time? It will be too late then to put 
Virginia together again. The Constitution of the 
United States makes provision for dividing the state; 
it makes no provision for uniting two states into one." -^ 
Trumbull then moved that action on the bill be deferred 
until the first Monday in December. While the vote 
was being taken Carlile and Willey engaged in a wordy 
battle, the latter accusing his colleague of having be- 
trayed the people of West Virginia. Mr. Wade came 
to Willey's assistance and made some illuminating 
statements regarding the part which Carlile had taken 
in framing the original bill. 

"He, of all the men in the committee, is the man who 
penned these bills and drew them up. He is the man 
who has investigated all the precedents to see how far 
you could go in this direction. It was to his lucid mind 
that we were indebted for the fact that there were no 
legal or constitutional barriers in the way of this prop- 
osition. . . . He is the gentleman who impressed his 
opinions upon the committee as strongly as anybody 
else, and what change has come over the spirit of his 
dream I know not. His conversion is greater than that 
of St. Paul's. . . . Why did he persuade us that there 
was scarcely a dissenting vote in all that part of Vir- 
ginia, if now he has discovered that he was wrong .^" 

^Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, Part IV, p. 3318. 



WEST YIRGINIA BILL IN THE U. S. SENATE 297 

The speaker urged the passage of the bill at once, 
because there was no good reason why action should be 
deferred. Trumbull's motion to postpone was defeated ; 
the bill was ordered to be engrossed for the third read- 
ing and was then passed by a vote of twenty-three to 
seventeen.^ 

In the House Mr. Brown stood sponsor for the West 
Virginia bill. On June 25, 1862, he introduced the bill, 
which was read a first and a second time and referred to 
the Committee on Territories. The committee made its 
report July 16th. Upon motion of Mr. Conkling, con- 
sideration was postponed until the second Tuesday in 
December.^ 



The West Virginia question possesses many interest- 
ing and surprising features. In reviewing the course 
of events one cannot but be struck by the fact that it 
was the unexpected which generally turned up. No 
one would have predicted in May, 1861, that John S. 
Carlile, the real leader in the reorganized government 
and the first man to propose the division of the state, 
would be branded as a Judas Iscariot in 1862. Like- 
wise, no one expected to see Waitman T. Willey, known 
in the early part of 1861 as a pro-slavery man and 
thoroughly out of sympathy with the Wheeling gov- 

* Those recorded in the negative are Trumbull, Chandler, Mc- 
Dougall, Sumner, Wilson, King, Cowan, Bayard, Saulsbury, 
Carlile, Powell, Davis, Wright, and Browning. 

^Speeches of Mr. Whalley and Mr. Blair delivered at this 
time will be found in the Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd session, Part 
IV, p. 3269, and p. 327 of the Appendix. 



298 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

ernment, take up the burden thrown off by Carhle and 
battle with all his might for a cause toward which he 
had formerly exhibited entire indifference.^ Carlile's 
most clever apologist could scarcely make out a good 
case for him, although he cannot be condemned solely 
on the ground that he changed his opinion. Much had 
occurred in the year following the May convention. 
Careful and impartial observers of the situation knew 
that men with strong Union principles were hard to 
find in any place in the state. Enlistments in the Union 
army were provokingly slow and it was only through 
the assistance of men from Ohio and Pennsylvania that 
the state was able to furnish anything like her quota of 
troops." All newspaper correspondents testified to the 
unmistakable hostility of the western Virginians and 
some advised that the section be left to shift for it- 
self.^ It has been stated that in no election was 
there more than a small minority of votes cast. The 
feeling became general that this was a bad augury for 

^ In the fall of 1861 Mr. Willey had openly expressed his doubt 
as to the constitutionality of any bill designed to form a new 
state in Virginia. His support of the project was so luke- 
warm that he was openly accused of working against it. — 
Wheeling Intelligencer, Oct. 14, 1861. 

^Mr. M. Dent of Morgantown declared that he had been told 
by Colonel Evans of the 7th Virginia regiment that there were 
not over 1,000 Virginians in the whole Union army. 

The Wheeling Intelligencer, on Sept. 6, 1861, printed a letter 
signed "Western Virginian," asserting that most of the men 
protecting West Virginia were from Ohio and Indiana. "Of 
the tens of thousands of able-bodied young and middle-aged 
men, how many have responded to the call?" 

^ The Cincinnati papers were especially severe upon West Vir- 
ginia, probably because they were in such close touch with the 
situation and saw so clearly that the people had no desire to 
take part in the struggle. 



WEST VIRGINIA BILL IN THE U. S. SENATE 299 

the new government. As time went on and new matters 
presented themselves for consideration by the elector- 
ate, the apathy became dense. In special elections the 
returns invariably showed that the voters were deliber- 
ately staying away from the polls. The greatest num- 
ber of votes cast was in the election for state officers 
which occurred May 23, 1862, when 14,824 persons 
were reported to have taken part in the election.^ 
Mass meetings held for the purpose of nominating dele- 
gates to the various conventions were attended so 
poorly that in many instances they adjourned without 
taking any action.^ 

If Carlile had been influenced by his observation of 
these facts, and had honestly come to believe that there 
was no demand for the division of the state outside of 
a small group of interested men, his action opposing 
the West Virginia bill might be defended. But the 
underhand methods to which he resorted in order to 
defeat the plan cannot be justified. He deliberately 
chose to pursue a tortuous policy: posed as a friend 
of the new state while covertly doing his best to check 
the movement by veiled insinuations. The Wheeling 
authorities were amazed at Carlile's transformation. 
He had been counted on to put the measure through 
Congress, as Willey was known to be only lukewarm in 
his advocacy of the plan. When the first bill was re- 
ported in the Senate and it became evident that Carlile 

^ Wheeling Intelligencer, May 24, 1862. Braxton cast forty- 
one votes; Clay, twenty-seven; Roane, seventy-nine; Randolph, 
seventy-eight, etc. 

^ This was true even in Ohio County. 



300 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

had betrayed the state, the indignation of the Wheel- 
ing leaders knew no bounds. The "General Assembly" ^ 
passed a resolution denouncing in the severest terms 
Carlile's traitorous actions and calling upon him to 
resign his seat in the Senate. He was accused further 
of having opposed measures designed to preserve the 
Union and to suppress the rebellion.^ Northern news- 
papers spared no epithets in describing Carlile's 
conduct. His "sudden somersault" was explained, said 
one, by the fact that he had been associating with the 
Vallandinghammers.^ In the summer of 1862 Willey 
made an expose of the methods Carlile had used to de- 
feat the West Virginia bill.* As a member of the Com- 
mittee on Territories, Carlile had succeeded in prevent- 
ing a report being made until nearly the end of the ses- 
sion. At that time Mr. Willey went to Mr. Wade, the 
chairman, and asked him how such a bill had ever come 
out of the committee. The latter replied that Carlile had 
assumed charge of the whole affair and the other mem- 
bers, not being familiar with the situation, had been 
content to allow the one informed person to make up 
his own bill. Upon this, said Mr. Willey, a meeting of 
the West Virginia representatives, together with Pier- 
point, Porter, and others, was held and it was agreed 

^ This body was composed of thirty members. Governor Pier- 
point in his message made a general attack upon slavery with 
the result that the Assembly refused to have the message printed. 

* Carlile had joined the border-state Senators in opposing 
Lincoln's policies. He pronounced the confiscation bill uncon- 
stitutional; opposed the bill drafting volunteers, etc. 

3 Cincinnati Times, Feb. 8, 1862. 

* Morgantown Star, July 29, 1862. 



WEST VIRGINIA BILL IN THE U. S. SENATE 301 

that they should oppose any bill which aimed at taking 
in the Valley counties. The fact stood out as clear 
as the light of day that Carlile was alone responsible 
for whatever check the new-state bill had received. 

There the matter has rested. The present genera- 
tion of West Virginians know little of Carlile. If they 
have heard of him at all, it is as the man who almost 
succeeded in preventing their state from being formed 
when he was expected to play the most prominent part 
in having it made one of the states of the Union. 



CHAPTER XIX 

WEST VIRGINIA THE THIRTY-SIXTH STATE IN THE UNION 

Congress adjourned July 17, 1862. The debates in 
the Senate on the West Virginia question had aroused 
much interest in the subject throughout the North. 
The press and people were divided along partisan lines, 
the anti-administration papers lining up solidly against 
the bill. A New York financial paper detected a dispo- 
sition on the part of Congress to legislate from impulse 
rather than from a deep conviction founded upon close 
study. "If members of Congress examine their own 
hearts, can they not detect a lurking desire to punish 
the Old Dominion for her infidelity by stripping her of 
those outlying possessions which she abandoned to 
neglect? . . . We would be loth to see the principle 
established that because the constituted authorities of 
a state may have acted criminally, therefore the state 
itself may be cut into shreds and patches." ^ Abolition 
papers agreed with Senator Sumner that West Virginia 
was desirable only as a free state.^ If slavery had such 
an extraordinary hold upon the people that they would 
not consent to its abolition, then the North would be 

^ The Commercial Advertiser, July 20, 1862. 
^National Republican, Aug. 2, 1862. 

302 



WEST VIRGINIA THE THIRTY-SIXTH STATE 303 

justified in rejecting their petition, especially as the 
legality of the procedure was questionable.^ Some were 
unable to see any good at all that could be brought 
about by the admission of West Virginia, even with 
an abolition constitution.^ 

As a rule, however, newspapers throughout the North 
were favorable to the West Virginia bill. Many of them 
had opposed the measure in 1861, but had changed their 
tone and now gave it hearty support.^ It was the gen- 
eral feeling that the hands of the Federal Government 
should be strengthened as much as possible, and the 
rather vague idea prevailed that the Union cause would 
be aided if West Virginia was admitted. Constitutional 
objections were now lost sight of in the greater ques- 
tion of expediency.^ The New York World declared 
that the people of West Virginia deserved some reward 
for their heroic defense of the Union. The Tribune was 
in favor of admission, even though the constitution of 
the new state was silent on the slavery question, while 
the Post made its support of the bill contingent upon 
the passage of a gradual emancipation clause. The 
Times was inclined to be non-committal, but feared that 
innocent holders of Virginia bonds would suffer if the 
state were divided. The Washington Chronicle ex- 

^ Pittsburgh Gazette, Aug. 22nd. 

^The Anti-Slavery Standard, Aug. 10th. 

' This was especially true of the papers of New York City. 

*The Philadelphia Press at first warned the people of West 
Virginia that Congress would not recognize secession by listen- 
ing to their petitions for admission. In June, 1862, this journal 
had come around to the other side and now declared that it 
could not see a single objection to the act of admission. 



304 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

pressed its inability to perceive any good reason why 
Congress should refuse admission. The whole ques- 
tion simply was whether Congress would recognize and 
protect a certain loyal community which needed its 
protection. The Cincinnati Commercial agreed with 
this, and added that no attention should be paid to 
those who held out for immediate emancipation. The 
Utica Herald said : "The consent of the legislature of 
eastern Virginia has not been secured, but they are 
traitors and their consent may be dispensed with. The 
consent of the people of the east, however, is vitally 
necessary. Many of them are loyalists and it is not 
just to cut up the state while they are tied hand and 
foot to the rebellion." 

The New York Tribune took upon itself the difficult 
task of showing why the admission of West Virginia 
was constitutional. There were two rival hypotheses: 
first, that which regarded the insurgent states as having 
committed suicide by their treason and being now 
merely Federal territory subject to reorganization and 
readmission; second, that which regarded the states 
as still existing in the persons and acts of the loyal 
citizens. The Democrats in the North held the sec- 
ond view, but now that the administration was acting 
in accordance with it they changed their opinion. The 
West Virginia which forms the new state, said the 
Tribune, was totally distinct from the old Virginia that 
assented to it, though it happened that most of the 
members of the legislature were chosen from the coun- 
ties which formed the new state of West Virginia. The 



WEST VIRGINIA THE THIRTY-SIXTH STATE 305 

National Intelligencer took the opposite view and 
claimed that the act of admission would be a violation 
both of the United States Constitution and the state 
constitution. It would have to be consummated on the 
assumption that the secession of Virginia was an accom- 
plished fact, so far as it regarded that portion of the 
state which was in rebellion against the Federal Govern- 
ment. The Wheeling Intelligencer criticized its north- 
ern contemporaries for not familiarizing themselves 
with the local situation. One half did not know that the 
question of separation was submitted to all the people 
of Virginia, and about the same proportion were under 
the impression that the legislature which gave its con- 
sent to the formation of the new state did not represent 
the whole state of Virginia. The Intelligencer far over- 
shot the mark in its zeal for the new state. For it to 
assert that the people of Virginia approved the divi- 
sion of the new state was a palpable falsehood, the chief 
effect of which was to mislead outside observers of the 
situation. 



Tuesday, December 9, 1862, the House of Repre- 
sentatives took up the consideration of the Senate bill 
providing for the admission of West Virginia into the 
Union. Mr. Conway of Kansas made the first speech 
in opposition, urging that while West Virginia deserved 
all the good fortune that could come to it, its admission 
involved too many moot questions of constitutionality. 
All depended upon the consent of the Virginia legis- 



306 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

lature, and while a liberal construction of the United 
States Constitution was necessary sometimes, it was 
not possible to stretch that document far enough to 
cover the case before them. The Pierpoint government 
was put in operation without any legal sanction other 
than its recognition by the President and the Senate. 
This was not binding upon the House. The Wheeling 
government assumed authority on the ground that the 
treason of the regular state officials left vacancies. 
These they had filled. All this was unsatisfactory, said 
Mr. Conway, because a state could commit no treason 
and because the Pierpoint clique had no right to arro- 
gate to themselves the vacant offices. The real impor- 
tance of the situation lay in the fact that the Federal 
authorities might soon be called upon to take some 
action in eleven states whose position was like that of 
Virginia. A policy designed to put all the authority 
of a state in the hands of a few individuals calling 
themselves the loyal citizens of the state was a wrong 
one. Its effect would be to consolidate all the powers 
of the government in the hands of the Executive. If 
the West Virginia bill passed, four Senators would be 
created and the President could be sure of the electoral 
votes of Virginia and West Virginia. Thus he could 
build up a political machine of unparalleled strength. 
As for the constitutional points at issue, Virginia was 
either out of the Union and to be regarded as a foreign 
state, or else she was still a member of the Union and 
to be respected as such. The latter view now prevailed. 
A state could not commit treason, since treason was a 



WEST VIRGINIA THE THIRTY-SIXTH STATE 307 

crime and only individuals could commit crimes. If 
the whole personnel of the state abandon its functions, 
it becomes United States territory subject only to 
Federal authority. The regularly elected officers of 
Yirginia had vacated their positions by virtue of their 
treason, but no man or set of men could legally take 
up these offices without being chosen according to law.^ 
Mr. Brown, one of the authors of the bill, assailed 
vigorously Conway's arguments. He defended the 
legitimacy of the Wheeling government, but touched 
lightly upon the constitutional principles involved. 
Not only had the President and the Senate recognized 
the Wheeling government, but the Attorney General 
of the United States had made a formal decision de- 
claring that the Wheeling authorities had lawfully as- 
\ sumed the power surrendered by Letcher and the other 
I eastern Virginia officials.^ Since the legislative powers 
' of the people could not be annihilated, the treason of 
1 the Richmond conspirators had simply caused such 
^ powers to revert back to the people. The Wheeling 
I conventions were organized upon the principle that the 
people could assume their original rights when it be- 

^ Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 3rd session, Part I, pp. 
37-8. 

^ The case referred to was one involving the question of the 
distribution from the sale of public lands. Virginia had pre- 
viously refused to accept her share. The Wheeling government, 
being in sore need of money, applied to the Federal authorities 
for the $40,000 due the state. The matter was referred to 
Attorney General Bates, who decided that the loyal legislature 
of Virginia had the right to make such a request. The money 
was turned over to the Wheeling government. — "Laws of West 
Virginia," Acts of the General Assembly; Joint Res. No. 2. 



308 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

came necessary to do so. The legislature which gave 
its consent to the division of the state was composed 
of the only loyal representatives of the state. The 
counties included in the bill contained about 24,000 
square miles and had a population of nearly 330,000. 
Virginia had never been a united state and never could 
be, because of geographical reasons. The hatred be- 
tween the sections had been greatly intensified by the 
war. At the time the first Wheeling convention was in 
session Southern troops were only fifty or sixty miles 
away, marching with all possible speed to disperse the 
gathering.^ The proposed new state had raised six- 
teen regiments for the Union army, more than her 
quota. In his own county, said Mr. Brown, nearly 
every fighting man was in the army.^ 

It was fortunate for West Virginia that its fate did 
not depend upon the efforts of its representatives in 
the House. The case was weak enough to begin with, 
but the crude attempts of Mr. Brown and his colleagues 
to justify their position would have been laughable had 
the Representatives really understood the situation. 

Opposition in the House was more determined than 
it had been in the Senate, in spite of the fact that the 
measure was free from the slavery features of the first 
bill. The case for the new state was best brought out 

^ Where Mr. Brown got his authority for this statement we do 
not know. No organized body of Confederates ever approached 
nearer to Wheeling than Grafton, 100 miles away, and their 
number was too small to contemplate a march on Wheeling. 

^ Kanawha was one of the strongest Secessionist counties in 
the state, so Brown's reference must have been to the Southern 
army. 



WEST VIRGINIA THE THIRTY-SIXTH STATE 309 

by Mr. Colfax, of Indiana, whose reasons for support- 
ing the act were the most logical that could have been 
given : First, the Wheeling government had been recog- 
nized by the President,^ by the Senate,^ by the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury,^ by the Secretary of War,^ by 
the Secretary of the Interior,^ and by the House of 
Representatives ; ^ secondly, the expediency of the act 
was beyond question ; thirdly, the bill was drawn up to 
include the erection of a state out of loyal counties 
only. 

Mr. Olin, of New York, declared his intention of 

voting for the bill, but would do so mainly because the 

Executive Department had given the West Virginians 

I reason to believe that their requests would meet with 

I the approval of all departments of the government. 

"But," said he, "I confess I do not fully understand 

upon what principles of constitutional law this measure 

I can be justified. It cannot be done, I fear, at all. It 

' can be justified only as a measure of policy and of 

I necessity." The speaker ridiculed the idea that either 

the spirit or the letter of the law had been complied 

with. Mr. Crittenden of Kentucky was even more im- 

] pressed by the constitutional obstacles in the way of 

the division of Virginia at that time. All knew that 

* In dealing directly with the Wheeling authorities. 
^ By admitting Carlile and Willey. 
' By paying over the $40,000 due Virginia from the sale of 

1 public lands. 

* By communicating with Pierpoint as the Governor of Virginia. 
^ By recognizing Pierpoint. 

* By admitting Mr. Segar, who was elected under a proclama- 
tion issued by Pierpoint. Segar had presented himself a second 
time for admission and had been accepted. See pp. 278-84. 



310 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA 

Virginia was in a state of rebellion, but was still a 
member of the Union. When she was fully restored 
to her original position, her first demand would be that 
the sections so illegally taken from her should be given 
back. She would say : "I gave no consent, and there 
is the Constitution which says that without my consent 
you shall not do what you have done, and now you 
cannot deprive me of my rights by any such unconstitu- 
tional course of procedure." No one really believed 
that the government at Wheeling was the government 
of Virginia. This might be inferred from the fact that 
the body which drew up the petition for admission was 
the same body which gave its consent as the Virginia 
legislature. "/# is the party applying for admission 
consenting to the admission." 

Mr. Dawes, of Massachusetts, exhibited not merely 
a knowledge of the legal questions involved, but also 
a most disconcerting familiarity with some of the 
points not enlarged upon by the friends of the new 
state. He showed that the first Wheeling convention 
was deterred from taking steps toward separation from 
Virginia only by the suggestion of some unknown per- 
sons in Washington, that the act could better be accom- 
plished by first setting up a reorganized government.-*^ 
The speaker stated most emphatically that no person 
residing in any portion of the state but the part con- 
templating separation had given his consent to the act. 

^The western Virginia Representatives in Congress had always 
claimed that the only purpose for which this convention was 
called was the reestablishment of the government of Virginia. 



WEST VIRGINIA THE THIRTY-SIXTH STATE 311 

Two or three representatives had been "picked up" in 
various counties of the east, but they did not claim to 
represent their counties officially. "It is trifling with 
the spirit of the constitution to say that any portion 
of the state of Virginia which is left has consented in 
any way, in any form and substance to the dismember- 
ment of the state." As for the invitation sent out to 
all the counties to join in the movement, it was like 
commanding a man bound hand and foot in prison to 
come forth. 

Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, said he would vote for 
the bill, while knowing it to be unconstitutional. No 
provision could be found to justify it on constitutional 
grounds. It was mockery to say that the Virginia legis- 
lature had ever consented to the division of the state. 
The body which met in Richmond was still the legisla- 
ture of Virginia, although disloyal and traitorous. The 
state as a state was bound by its act, but not the in- 
dividuals who were responsible to the general govern- 
ment. "I say then that we may admit West Virginia 
< as a new state, not by virtue of any provision of the 
Constitution but under our absolute power which the 
laws of war give us. I shall vote for this bill upon that 
theory and upon that alone, for I will not stultify my- 
self by supposing that we have any warrant in the 
Constitution for this proceeding." 

Mr. Noell, of Missouri, who also announced his in- 
tention of voting for the bill while doubting its con- 
stitutionality, asserted that they were living in revolu- 
tionary times, when they could not afford to split hairs 



312 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

on technical questions. Mr. Segar undertook to show 
that the bill should not be passed even if it was con- 
stitutional. The new-state proposition did not derive 
its power from the people of Virginia, not even from 
the people of the section of the state directly concerned. 
The consent of the West Virginians had never been ob- 
tained. There were 55,400 people in the eleven south- 
ern counties who had never indicated their desire to 
join in the movement, and 27,509 citizens of three other 
counties had had practically no representation at any 
of the Wheeling meetings. Ten counties with a popu- 
lation of 50,000 did not cast a vote either on the ques- 
tion of dividing the state or on the new constitution. 
Three counties at least — Greenbrier, Mercer, and Mon- 
roe — were connected with eastern Virginia by every pos- 
sible tie. It was wrong to force the people of these 
counties to transfer their allegiance to a government 
in which they had no interest and in whose formation 
they had no part. The passage of the bill, finally, 
would turn adrift the reclaimed portions of Virginia 
not included in the new state and would render more 
difficult the reconstruction of Virginia. 

Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, as the chief supporter of the 
bill closed the debate with a long speech in which he 
attempted to answer every objection that had been 
raised. To the theory that West Virginia was a terri- 
tory and could not be admitted because there had been 
no enabling act passed by Congress, he replied that 
such an act had not been necessary when Michigan 
was admitted and was not necessary now. The neglect 



WEST VIRGINIA THE THIRTY-SIXTH STATE 313 

or the refusal of a majority of the qualified voters to 
go to the polls had no effect upon the election. While 
it was undoubtedly true that the majority in any state 
constituted the state, yet this majority must be com- 
posed of loyal citizens. The loyal minority of Vir- 
ginia were the state and had the right to administer 
the laws and maintain the state government. Those 
members of the Virginia Assembly who subscribed to 
the act of secession thereby disqualified themselves from 
serving as Senators or Representatives. Only those 
who took the oath to support the Constitution of the 
United States were ever members of any legislature 
of any state in the United States. 

The remainder of Mr. Bingham's address was a 
summary of the ground already covered by previous 
speakers on the same side. His closing words are 
significant. Referring to the emancipation policy of 
the President, he urged that the final recognition of 
the Wheeling government would give an impetus to 
anti-slavery : 

"Declare that the legislature of the state and then 
upon that hypothesis admit the state; and of course 
once admitted its own legislative assembly will be be- 
yond question; and when the new legislature under the 
new state of Virginia shall accept the President's prop- 
osition ... all doubters about the constitutionality 
of the act will be silent; and, whether silent or not, 
there will stand the record of the majority of this 
House to give validity to their act and from which there 
can he no appeal." ^ 
^Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 4th session, Part I, p. 59. 



314 THE DISRUPTION OF TIRGINIA 

On December 10, 1862, the bill was passed by a 
strictly party vote of ninety-six to fifty-five.^ The 
final responsibility was now thrown upon President 
Lincoln, whose s^^mpathies were well known to be with 
the new state. He realized, nevertheless, that grave 
constitutional questions were involved, and that a 
precedent might be established which was calculated at 
some future time to embarrass the Government. So 
an expedient was decided upon which was intended to 
show that his mind was open to conviction. On De- 
cember 23 he addressed a letter to the Cabinet which 
ran as follows: "A bill for an act entitled 'An Act 
for the Admission of the State of West Virginia into 
the Union and for other purposes' has passed the House 
of Representatives and the Senate and has been duly 
presented to me for my action. I respectfully ask of 
each of you an opinion in writing on the following 
questions, to-wit: First, Is the said act constitutional? 
Second, Is the said act expedient?" " 

Six of the Cabinet members replied to Lincoln's re- 
quest ^ and their opinions were equally divided. Seward, 
Chase, and Stanton answered both questions in the 
affirmative, while Welles, Blair, and Bates replied in 



^ Gideon "Welles makes the following comment in his diary: 
"The Hou«;e has voted to create and admit western Virginia as 
a state. This is not the time to divide the old Commonwealth. 
The requirements of the Constitution are not complied with, as 
they in good faith should be, by Virginia, by the proposed new 
state, or by the United States," p. 188. 

^ Nicolay and Hay, "Abraham Lincoln," Vol. VI, p. 300. 

^ Caleb B. Smith, Secretary of the Interior, had just retired 
from the Cabinet and his successor had not yet been appointed. 



WEST VIRGINIA THE THIRTY-SIXTH STATE 315 

the negative. Attorney General Bates declared that 
the measure was both unconstitutional and inexpedient. 
Congress could admit new states but could not form 
new states. A free American state could be made only 
by its component members — the people. The state must 
exist as a separate independent body before admission. 
In the case of West Virginia the legislature of the 
whole state had not given its consent as required by 
the Constitution and furthermore the consent of both 
legislatures was necessary. No one claimed that there 
was any legislature of West Virginia to give its con- 
sent. The reorganized government owed its origin to 
necessity, not to law, and was clearly a revolutionary 
proceeding justified by the exigencies of the situation. 
It was a provisional government, whose object was not 
to divide but to restore the state. Coming to the more 
practical side of the question, Mr. Bates asserted that 
the restored government never represented more than 
one fourth of the people of Virginia. The act of con- 
sent was less in the nature of a law than of a contract. 
It was a grant of power, an agreement to be divided. 
In the present instance the representatives of the coun- 
ties included in the bill made an agreement with them- 
selves. "Is that fair dealing?" asked Mr. Bates. "Is 
that honest legislation .^ Is that a legitimate exercise 
of a constitutional power by the legislature of Vir- 
ginia.'^ It seems to me . . . that that is nothing less 
than attempted secession, hardly covered under the 
flimsy forms of law." ^ 

^ Opinions of Attorney Generals of the United States," Vol. 10, 



316 THE DISRUPTION OF YIRGINIA 

Mr. Seward upheld the constitutionality of the act 
on the ground that the United States does not recog- 
nize secession and since Virginia must be deemed as 
existing in the Union, the loyal portion must be the 
government of Virginia. "If the United States allow 
to that organization any of these rights, powers, and 
privileges it must be allowed to possess and enjoy them 
all. If it be a state competent to be represented in 
Congress and bound to pay taxes, it is a state com- 
petent to give the required consent of the state to the 
formation and erection of the new state of West Vir- 
ginia within the jurisdiction of Virginia." The act 
was expedient, said Mr. Seward, first, because it would 
serve to give the people of West Virginia better pro- 
tection, and, second, because the United States Gov- 
ernment would derive much benefit thereby.^ 

Mr. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury, agreed with 
Seward in every particular. Mr. Stanton dismissed 
the whole question with a few words. He could not per- 
ceive that the act was in conflict with the Constitution 
of the United States, and the admission of the new 
state would establish a new boundary between the free 
and the slave states. Mr. Welles argued that the new 
organization in Virginia lacked all the symbols of a 
state — records, traditions, capitol, etc. It did not 
assume any of the debts and liabilities of the old state 
and acted in all respects like a mere provisional govem- 

p. 426. The fact that Mr. Bates was a native of Virginia may 
have been responsible for his feeling on the subject. 
* Nicolay and Hay, "Abraham Lincoln," Vol. VI, p. 301. 



WEST VIRGINIA THE THIRTY-SIXTH STATE 317 

ment. Now it proposed to detach itself from the east- 
ern section, something which could not be done in a 
regular, legal manner conformable to the letter and 
spirit of the Constitution. Even though the act had 
been constitutional it would be inexpedient at such a 
period of civil commotion. Postmaster General Blair, 
in recording himself as opposed to the bill, stressed the 
point that the actual consent of the old state had never 
been given. Moreover, it was injurious to cut off the 
loyal people of Virginia in the counties not included 
in the Act, especially as their number far exceeded the 
20,000 West Virginians who had consented to the sepa- 
ration.^ 

President Lincoln read these opinions carefully be- 
fore attaching his signature to the bill. His reasons 
for signing the Act were given as follows : 

"The consent of the legislature of Virginia is con- 
stitutionally necessary to the bill for the admission of 
West Virginia becoming a law. A body claiming to be 
such legislature has given its consent. We cannot well 
deny that it is such, unless we do so upon the outside 
knowledge that the body was chosen at elections in 
which a majority of the qualified voters of Virginia did 
not participate. But it is a universal practice . . . 
to give no legal consideration whatever to those who 
do not choose to vote, as against the effect of the votes 
of those who do choose to vote. Hence it is not the 
qualified voters, but the qualified voters who choose to 
vote, that constitute the political power of the state. 
Much less than to non-voters should any consideration 

* Nicolay and Hay, "Abraham Lincoln," Vol. VI, p. 301. 



318 THE DISRUPTION OF TIRGINIA 

be given to those who did not vote in this case, because 
it is also matter of outside knowledge that they were not 
merely neglectful of their rights under and duty to 
this government, but were also engaged in open rebel- 
lion against it. Doubtless among these non-voters were 
some Union men whose voices were smothered by the 
more numerous Secessionists ; but we know too little of 
their number to assign them any appreciable value. 
Can this government stand if it indulges constitutional 
constructions by which men in open rebellion against 
it are to be accounted, man for man, the equals of those 
who maintain their loyalty to it? Are they to be ac- 
counted even better citizens and more worthy of con- 
sideration than those who neglect to vote? If so, their 
treason against the Constitution enhances their con- 
stitutional value. Without braving these absurd con- 
clusions, we cannot deny that the body which consents 
to the admission of West Virginia is the legislature of 
Virginia. I do not think the plural form of the words 
'legislatures' and 'states' in the phrase of the Con- 
stitution 'without the consent of the legislatures of 
the states concerned,' etc., has any reference to the new 
state concerned. That plural form sprang from the 
contemplation of two or more old states contributing 
to form a new one. The idea that the new state was 
in danger of being admitted without its own consent 
was not provided for because it was not thought of, as 
I conceive. . . . But is the admission into the Union 
of West Virginia expedient? . . . More than on any- 
thing else, it depends on whether the admission or rejec- 
tion of the new state would, under all circumstances, 
tend the more strongly to the restoration of the na- 
tional authority throughout the Union. That which 
helps most in this direction is the most expedient at 
this time. Doubtless those in remaining Virginia would 



WEST VIRGINIA THE THIRTY-SIXTH STATE 319 

return to the Union, so to speak, less reluctantly with- 
out the division of the old state than with it, but I think 
we could not save as much in this quarter by rejecting 
the new state, as we should lose by it in West Virginia. 
We can scarcely dispense with the aid of West Virginia 
in this trouble; much less can we afford to have her 
against us, in Congress and in the field. Her brave 
and good men regard her admission into the Union 
as a matter of life and death. They have been true to 
the Union under very severe trials. We have so acted 
as to justify their hopes and we cannot fully retain 
their confidence and cooperation if w^e seem to break 
faith with them. In fact, they could not do so much 
for us, if they would. Again, the admission of the new 
state turns that much slave soil to free, and thus is a 
certain and irrevocable encroachment upon the cause of 
the rebellion. The division of a state is dreaded as a 
precedent. But a measure made expedient by a war 
is no precedent for times of peace. It is said that the 
admission of West Virginia is secession and tolerated 
only because it is our secession. Well, if we call it by 
that name, there is still difference enough between seces- 
sion against the Constitution and secession in favor of 
the Constitution. I believe the admission of West Vir- 
ginia into the Union is expedient." ^ 

After the President's signature had been attached 
to the West Virginia bill there yet remained one step 
to be taken before a proclamation could be issued de- 
claring the new state formally admitted into the Union. 
The people must first ratify the gradual emancipation 
clause; and while it was a foregone conclusion that 
such would be done a considerable spirit of opposition 

^Nicolay and Hay, "Abraham Lincoln, " Vol. VI, pp. 309-11. 



320 THE DISRUPTION OF TIRGINIA 

developed among those who professed to fear negro 
domination. January 14th, 1863, the Schedule Com- 
missioners recalled the constitutional convention and 
issued a proclamation ordering elections in five counties 
not heretofore represented.^ In obedience to this 
call the convention reassembled in Wheeling February 
the 12th, 1863, with fifty-four members present repre- 
senting forty-four of the forty-eight counties.^ A 
committee known to be favorable to emancipation was 
appointed to consider the insertion of the necessary 
clause in the constitution.^ February 17th an elec- 
tion ordinance was passed submitting the revised con- 
stitution to the people of the state. The act provided 
that the names of the voters should be permanently 
enrolled in the registration book according to their 
votes for or against the constitution.^ 

March 26th the constitution as amended was rati- 
fied by a vote of 18,862 to 514; a copy was sent to 
President Lincoln and on April the 19th he issued a 
proclamation declaring the admission of West Vir- 
ginia completed to take eifect sixty days from that 
time. 

June the 20th, 1863, West Virginia formally took 
her place in the Union as the thirty-fifth state and 
Virginia, the mother of states and of statesmen, had 
been dispossessed of one-third her territory. 

^ Rending of Virginia, page 499. 
^Wheeling Intelligencer, Oct. 13, 1863. 

^Messrs. Van Winkle, Willey, Brown, Lamb and Parker com- 
posed the Committee. 

* Wheeling Intelligencer, Feb. 18, 1863. 



INDEX 



Albemarle, County, 102, 167. 

Alexandria, 233. 

Alexandria, Loudoun, and 

Hampshire R.R., 24. 
Alexandria Gazette, 63, 76, 93, 

101, 142. 
Alexandria Sentinel, 97. 
Alleghany Mountains, 1, 2, 7, 

36, 47, 68, 94. 
Alleghany, County, 261, 289. 
Ambler, Chas. H., quoted, 1, 

33, 5Q, 65, 67. 
Amelia, County, 149. 
American R. R. Journal, 24. 
Anderson, Major, 166. 
Anderson, J. F., 167. 
Augusta, County, 167, 175, 261, 
289. 



Baldwin, John B., 126; inter- 
view with Lincoln, 164, 165, 
166, 174, 175. 

Baltimore, 4, 22, 23, 53, 54. 

Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 19; 
effect on eastern Virginia, 
22, 23, 53, 190, 193. 

Barbour, County, 6, 167, 192, 
233, 257, 274, 275. 

Barbour, P. P., rep. in Cong., 
35. 

Bates, Edward, Att'y Gen. of 
U. S., 237; opinion on W. 
Va. case, 313, 314. 



Bath, County, 46, 102, 146, 289. 
Bayard, James A., U. S. Sena- 
tor, 227, 228. 
Bedford, County, 135. 
Beach, S. F., 281, 282. 
Bedford Herald, 141. 
Bell, John, candidate for Pres., 

66, 95, 122. 
Belleville, County, 10. 
Berkeley, County, 12, 14, 31, 

192, 240, 241, 261, 289. 
Blue Ridge Mountains, 2, 6, 7, 

10, 30, 36, 51, 55, 56, 84, 101, 

115, 252. 
Boone, County, 5, 31, 147, 193, 

257, 265, 366, 267. 
Boreman, Arthur I., 209. 
Boston Post, 208. 
Botetourt, County, 10, 11, 161, 

167, 289. 
Botts, John M., in Richmond 

Conv., 58, 61, 114, 164, 166, 

178. 
Braxton, County, 193, 272, 286. 
Breckenridge, John C, candi- 
date for Pres., 66, 95, 122. 
Brooke, County, 4, 35, 72, 189, 

192, 193, 233, 257, 274. 
Brown, John, 87, 88. 
Brown, J. H., in first W. Va. 

Const. Conv. 258, 260, 263, 

264, 265, 268. 
Buchanan, County, 261. 
Buchanan, Jas., Pres. of U. S., 

109. 
Buffalo Express, 204. 
Burley, Jas., 153. 



321 



322 



INDEX 



Cabell, County, 5, 193, 255, 257, 
268, 270. 

Calhoun, County, 6, 193, 257, 
268, 270, 272, 274. 

Camden, G. D., 251. 

Campbell, Alex., in Const. 
Conv. of 1830, 35, 41. 

Cameron, Simon, Sec'y of War, 
252. 

Carlile, John S., in Const. 
Conv. of 1850, 58, 86; in 
Richmond Conv., 126^ 130, 
138, 144, 151, 159, 160, 162, 
183, 191; in Wheeling Conv., 
193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 206, 
211, 212, 213; in House of 
Rep., 225; in U. S. Senate, 
226, 227, 228; in August 
Conv., 234, 239, 240, 242; 
action on W. Va. bill, 290, 
291, 293-301. 

Carskardon, James, 220. 

Catholic Church, 16. 

Chambliss, J. R., 167. 

Chandler, J. A. C, "History of 
Suffrage in Virginia," 56. 

Charleston, W. Va., 24. 

Charleston (S. C.) Mercury, 

Charlottesville, 20. 
Charlottesville Jefersonian, 

141. 
Chase, Salmon P., U. S. Sec'y 

of Treas., 316. 
Christian Banner, 93, 115. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co., 

19, 20. 
Chesterfield, County, 39. 
Cincinnati, river traffic, 23. 
Cincinnati Commercial, 184, 

199, 202, 254, 304. 
Cincinnati Gazette, 199, 245. 
Clark, County, 261, 289. 
Clarksburg, 53, 75, 83, 186, 191, 

244. 
Clay, County, 6, 193, 255, 272, 

286. 



Cleveland Leader, 199. 
Clemens, Sherrard, 126, 183. 
Collier, C. F., 167. 
Confederate States, 178, 196. 
Congress of U. S., 23; W. Va. 

question, 224-230, 278-300, 

305-314. 
Congressional Globe, 100, 120, 

225, 278, 283, 284, 286, 289, 

293, 295, 297, 307, 313. 
Conrad, R. Y., 174. 
Covington & Ohio R.R., 24, 25. 
Craig, County, 261, 289. 
Cranmer, Gibson L., 210. 



Dandridge, "Historic Shep- 

herdstown," 8. 
De Bow's Review, 18, 21, 25, 

48. 
Delaware, 252. 
Disciples' Church, 16, 35. 
Doddridge, County, 6, 193, 233, 

257, 270. 
Doddridge, Philip, in Const. 

Conv. of 1830, 35, 38, 44, 46. 
Douglas, Stephen A., candidate 

for Pres., 66, 122. 



E 



Early, Jubal A., in Richmond 
Conv., 126, 142, 145, 154, 159, 
171, 178. 

Eckenrode, H. J., "The Politi- 
cal Reconstruction of Va.," 
201. 

Episcopal Church, 16. 



Fairfax, Lord, 8. 
Fairfax, County, 233. 
Fairmont, 22, 190, 244. 
Faulkner, C. J., 58. 
Fauquier, County, 63. 
Fayette, County, 5, 14, 193, 258. 



INDEX 



323 



Fincastle, County, 10. 

Florida, 85. 

Floyd, Benj. R., 58. 

Fort Sumter, 162, 166, 171, 

179. 
Frederick, County, 45, 235, 

289. 
Fredericksburg Herald, 141. 
Fredericksburg, Richmond & 

Petersburg R. R., 2. 
French Protestants, in Va., 8. 
Fugitive Slave Law, 159. 



Garnett, M. R. H., 58, 143. 

Georgia, 130. 

German inhabitants of Va., 1, 
7, 8, 9, 11. 

German Reformed Church, 16. 

Giles, County, 46, 261. 

Gilmer, County, 192, 193, 233, 
255, 257, 274. 

Gist, Joseph, 220. 

Goggin, W. L., candidate for 
Gov., 88; in Richmond Conv., 
134. 

Gosport Navy Yard, 101, 224. 

Grafton, 80, 190, 206, 244. 

Gray, C. D., testimony before 
Joint Com. on Reconstruc- 
tion, 180. 

Grayson, County, 46. 

Great Kanawha River, 5, 10, 
13, QO, 70, 79. 

Greeley, Horace, "The Ameri- 
can Conflict," 176. 

Greenville, County, 167. 

Greenbrier, County, 4, 5, 10, 11, 
13, 14, 193, 240, 261, 266, 
274. 

Greenbrier, River, 10, 14. 

Grigsby, Hugh, 40. 



Hall, E. R., 258. 

Hall, Granville D., "The Rend- 
ing of Virginia," 122, 170. 
173, 181, 183, 191, 193, 213. 
220, 239, 240, 290. 

Hall, John, 258. 

Hall, Leonard S., 132, 158, 182. 

Hampshire, County, 10, 12, 14. 
46, 192, 220, 233, 255, 257^ 
274. 

Hampton, 279. 

Hancock, County, 5, 122, 189, 
192, 193, 233, 257, 274. 

Hardy, County, 4, 12, 193, 220. 
233, 240, 241, 257, 261, 270; 
274. 

Harmon, J. A., 167. 

Harrison, County, 6, 28, 50, 
191, 192, 220, 233, 255, 257, 
274. 

Harvie, Lewis E., 126, 146. 

Harper's Ferry, 101, 173, 224, 
244. 

Haymond, A. F., 155, 156, 251. 

Highland, County, 26i, 289. 

Hornbrook, Thos., 210. 

House of Rep., U. S., 100, 119, 
278-284, 297, 305-314. 

Hubbard, C. D., 238. 

Hunnicutt, Jas., "The Conspir- 
acy Unveiled," 93, 115, 149, 
167, 180. 

Hunter, R. M. T., U. S. Sen- 
ator, 100, 227. 



Illinois, 70. 

Imboden, John D., 173, 179. 

Indiana, 70, 274. 

Irish, in Va., 8, 11, 12. 



H ^ 

Hale, John P., U. S. Senator, Jackson, County, 14, 137, 19f, 

228. 233 257. 

Halifax, County, 122. Jackson, John, 191, 194, 196. 



324 



INDEX 



James River & Kanawha Ca- 
nal Co., 2, 3, 20, 53, 104, 106. 

Janney, John, in Richmond 
Conv., 58, 126. 

Jefferson, County, 12, 14, 46. 
193, 233, 240, 241, 242, 261^ 
289. 

Jefferson, Thos., 10, 29, 32. 

Jewish Churches, in Va., 16. 

Johns Hopkins Studies, 22, 201. 

Johnson, Andrew, sponsors W. 
Va. bill, 227. 

Johnson, Joseph, 63. 



Kanawha, County, 5, 193, 233, 

257, 258, 271. 
Kanawha, name proposed for 

new state, 240, 243, 257, 261, 

263. 
Kanawha Valley Star, 68, 88, 

94, 103, 147. 
Kentucky, County, 10, 14. 
Kentucky, 68, 125, 138. 
Kingwood Chronicle, 71. 



Lamb, Daniel, in Wheeling 
Conv., 239, 261, 270. 

Lancaster, County, 46. 

Lee, County, 261. 

Letcher, John, Wheeling 
speech, 54; in Conv. of 1850, 
58; elected Gov., 88; part in 
secession movement, 89, 99, 
103, 104, 107, 117, 147, 173, 
184, 248, 252, 287. 

Lewis, County, 5, 53, 192, 233. 
257, 274. 

Lewis, J. F., 164, 168. 

Lewisburg, 51. 

Lincoln, Abraham, Pres. elec- 
tion of 1860, 66, 67, 95, 97, 
98, 99; Inaugural Address, 
139, 140, 141, 142, 143; inter- 
view with delegation from 



Richmond Conv., 160, 161, 
162, 163; attempt to have 
Richmond Conv. adjourned.. 
164, 165, 166; message on Va. 
secession, 224; signs W. Va. 
bill, 317, 318. 

Lincoln, Abraham, Life, Pub- 
lic Services, and State Pa- 
pers, 163. 

Little Kanawha River, 3, 10. 
70, 115. 

Logan, County, 5, 193, 257, 265. 
266, 271, 274. 

Louisiana, 78. 

Loudoun, County, 32, 102. 

Louisville, 17, 23. 

Lutheran Church, in Va., 16. 

Lynchburg, 24. 

Lvnchburg Virginian, 92, 96, 
'l41. 



M 



Madison, Jas., in Conv. of 

1830, 35, 42. 
McCloud, J. B., 283. 
McDowell, County, 5, 193, 251, 

266, 272, 274. 
McGrew, J. C, 183. 
McGregor, H. P., 79. 
Marion, County, 6, 190, 192, 

193, 233, 255, 257, 266, 274. 
Marshall, County, 189, 192, 193, 

233, 257, 274. 
Marshall, John, in Conv. of 

1830, 35, 42. 
Maryland, 4, 10, 11, 68, 85, 101, 

125, 252. 
Mason, Jas. M., U. S. Senator, 

227. 
Mason, John Y., 58, 77. 
Mason & Dixon Line, 10. 
Mason, County, 192, 193, 233. 

257, 258. 
Memphis, 17. 
Mercer, County, 5, 14, 193, 261, 

266, 274. 
Millson, J. S., 100. 
Mississippi, state, 105, 130, 131. 



INDEX 



325 



Missouri, state, 125. 
Monongahela, River, 3, 6, 9, 19, 

41, 50, 69, 70. 
Monongalia, County, 5, 10, 80. 

185, 189, 190, 193, 193, 233. 

Q55, 274. 
Monroe, County, 4, 5, 12, 14, 

193, 266, 274. 
Monroe, Jas., in Conv. of 1830. 

35, 36, 40, 42. 
Montague, R. L., 126, 146, 161. 
Montgomery, County, 10, 46. 
Montgomery, Ala., 91. 
Moore, S. M., 126, 129, 134. 
Morgan, County, 12, 193, 220, 

240, 241, 261, 274, 286. 
Morgantown, 75, 190. 
Morgantown Star, 75, 81, 151, 

190, 219, 300. 
Moss, John, 195. 
Munford, B., "Va.'s Attitude 

Toward Slavery and Seces- 
sion," 143. 



N 



National Intelligencer, 69, 71, 
76, 77, 79, 82, 86, 89, 90, 91, 
93, 96, 98, 100, 114, 126, 139, 
180, 185, 186, 189, 190, 200. 
217, 305. 

National Republican, 302. 

New York Commercial Adver- 
tiser, 210, 302. 

New York Herald, 199, 204. 

New York Times, 72, 137, 199, 
200, 202, 303. 

New York Tribune, 62, 303, 
304. 

New York World, 199, 202, 
209, 303. 

Nicholas, County, 6, 193, 257, 
268, 286. 

Niles Register, 28, 29, 30, 32, 
50, 51, 52, 53, 55. 

Norfolk, 36, 40, 141, 174. 

Norfolk Herald, 116, 141. 

North CaroUna, 68, 125, 229. 



Ohio, County, 5, 10, 12, 28, 181, 

189, 192, 233, 257, 261, 274. 
Ohio, River, 3, 5, 9, 12, 68, 70, 

84, 115. 
Ohio, state, 11, 18, 72, 85, 245, 

274, 298. 
Opinions of Attorney Generals 

of the U. S., 315. 
Orange, County, 136. 



Page, County, 261, 289. 

Palmer, Captain, 23. 

Parkersburg, 190. 

Parkersburg Gazette, 186. 

Parson Brownlow's Book, 125 

Peace Conference, at Washing- 
ton, D. C, 107, 108, 133, 138. 
160. 

Pendleton, County, 4, 28, 193, 
261, 270, 274. 

Pennsylvania, 4, 9, 11, 18, 68, 
72, 85, 245, 252, 270, 298. 

Petersburg, 152, 167. 

Philadelphia North American, 
85. 

Philadelphia Press, 116, 189, 
199, 303. 

Philadelphia Public Ledger, 
98, 99, 118, 122, 170. 

Pickens, Francis, Gov. S. C, 
171. 

Pierpoint, Francis H., address 
at Wheeling, 73, 74, 197, 209 ; 
provisional Gov., 215, 219, 
220; attacked by Va. author- 
ities, 253, 254, 288. 

Pittsburgh Chronicle, 82, 83, 
120, 152, 155, 179, 185, 198, 
199, 200, 202, 218, 244. 

Pittsburgh Dispatch, 189. 

Pittsburgh Gazette, 204. 

Pittsburgh city, 23, 69, 70. 

Pleasants, County, 5, 192, 220, 
233, 257, 274. 



326 



INDEX 



Pocahontas, County, 3, 193. 

240, 261, 266. 
Polsley, Daniel, 215, 220, 235. 
Poore's Manual of R. R., 24. 
Porter, George McC, 248. 
Potomac River, 2, 3, 8, 19, 235. 
Presbyterian Church in Va., 

16. 
Preston, County, 4, 192, 233. 

274, 286. 
Preston, W. B., 126, 161, 162. 

172, 257. 
Princess Anne, County, 167. 
Prince William, County, 235. 
Proclamation of 1763, 9. 
Providence Journal, 214. 
Pryor, Roger A., 91, 124, 153. 
Putnam, County, 14, 193, 255. 

257. 



Q 



Quaker Churches in Va., 16. 



149, 150, 153, 156, 158, 160. 

163, 169, 253. 
Richmond Enquirer, 101, 104, 

118, 139, 142, 144, 150, 161. 

177 (25, 56, 62, 63, 76, 90. 

95, 97). 
Richmond Times, 53. 
Richmond Whig, 95, 96, 100, 

103, 118, 142, 151, 167, 200, 

250. 
Richmond, Whig Conv., 89. 
Ritchie, County, 192, 220, 233. 

257. 
Rives, W. C, 89, 91, 114, 120, 

145, 157. 
Roane, County, 6, 193, 257, 274. 
Roanoke, 2. 
Rockingham, County, 96, 184. 

261, 289. 
Ruffin, Edmund, 91. 
Russell, County, 46, 261. 
Russell, C. W., 251. 



Raleigh, County, 5, 193, 255. 

269, 272, 274. 
Randolph, County, 4, 28, 193. 

233, 257, 270, 274. 
Randolph, George, 126, 161. 
Randolph, John, 35, 41, 44. 
Randolph, Thos., 167. 
Reform Bill of 1832, 28. 
Reizenstein, Milton, "Economic 

Hist, of the B. & O. R. R.," 

22. 
Report of the Joint Com. on 

Reconstruction, 165, 168, 178. 
Revolutionary War, 7, 8, 11. 

26. 
Richmond, city, 19, 32, 33, 53, 

75. 
Richmond Convention, 124-177. 
Richmond Dispatch, 111, 112, 

116, 119, 121, 130, 132, 134, 

135, 136, 138, 142, 145, 146, 



Scotch Covenanters, in Va., 

17. 
Scotch-Irish, in Va., 1, 7, 8, 9. 
Scott, Robert, 97, 159. 
Scott, County, 46, 261. 
Seagar, Joseph, 278, 279, 280. 
Senate, U. S., W. Va. bill, 286- 

297. 
Senate Documents, 252. 
Seward, William H., 136, 316. 
Sheifey, J. A., 167. 
Shenandoah, County, 261, 289. 
Sickles, Daniel, 119. 
Smythe, County, 167. 
Spottsylvania, County, 45. 
South Carolina, 76, 78, 91, 105, 

110, 116, 130, 134, 145, 148, 

171, 185. 
Southern Confederacy, 90, 102, 

125, 133, 161. 
Staunton Conv., 29, 30. 
Stephens, Alex., 178. 
Stevens, Thaddeus, 311. 



INDEX 



327 



Stuart, A. H., 126, 161. 
Stuart, C. J., 269. 
Summers, Geo. W., 126, 148, 
164, 247. 



Taylor, County, 6, 185, 190, 
193, 233, 257, 258, 274. 

Taylor, Robert B., 40. 

Tazewell, County, 261. 

Tennessee, 125, 138, 229, 235. 

Tucker, County, 4, 193, 233, 
257. 

Tyler* County, 3, 5, 193, 233, 
257. 

Tyler County Plaindealer, 84. 

Tyler, John, in Const. Conv. 
of 1830, 35; interview with 
Pres. Buchanan, 108, 109; in 
Richmond Conv. 125, 149, 
172 209. 

Tucker, County, 4, 193, 233, 
257. 



U 



Underground R. R., 88. 
Upton, C. H., 278, 281. 
Upshur, County, 6, 192, 212, 
233, 255, 257. 



Vicksburg Whig, 92. 

Virginia, Const. Conv. of 1830, 
35-46; Const. Conv., 1850, 
58-65; Richmond Conv., 124- 
177; General Assembly, 22. 
24, 28, 31, 33, 50, 104, 219, 
251, 253, 277; Documents of 
1861-2, 249, 251, 252, 253: 
Journal of Conv. of 1867, 
180; Messages and Docu- 
ments, 106, 108, 109; Laws of 
1861-2, 196, 254; "Rump 
Legis.," 219-223, 275-277. 

Virginia Plaindealer ^ 82. 



W 

Warren, County, 261, 289. 

Warwick, County, 32, 46. 

Washington, D. C, 4, 101. 

Washington, George, 6, 8. 

Washington, County, 10. 

Wayne, County, 5, 75, 193, 196, 
233, 257, 266. 

Webster, County, 6, 193, 257. 

Webster, Daniel, 68. 

Welles, Gideon, 314. 

Wellsburg, 72. 

Wellsburg Herald, 72, 77, 86, 
245, 248. 

Welsh, inhabitants of Va., 9. 

Western Virginian, 80, 186. 

Weston, 53. 

West Virginia, 11, 13, 46, 51, 
70, 84, 85, 113, 186; organi- 
zation, 193, 198, 220, 250; 
lack of war sentiment, 253; 
in Cong., 286-300, 302; Const. 
Conv., Nov., 1861, 257-277; 
Laws of 1861-66, 286, 302. 

Wetzel, County, 5, 185, 192, 233, 
257. 

Wheat, Jas. S., 195, 196. 

Wheeling, city, 10, 22, 23, 53, 
54, 69, 73, 141, 186, 187, 190, 
193, 200, 244, 257. 

Wheeling Intelligencer, 55, 72, 
74, 75, 78, 81, 82, 84, 85, 90, 
102, 110, 114, 122, 127, 148, 
151, 155, 159, 161, 168, 177, 
180, 187, 189, 194, 205, 208, 
209, 210, 213, 219, 220, 221, 
222, 231, 234, 236, 237, 241, 
244, 245, 248, 251, 254, 275, 
276, 286, 287, 291, 295, 297, 
299, 305. 

Wheeling, May Conv., 192-205; 
June Conv. 206-218. 

Wheeling Press, 141, 237, 275. 

Whig, party, 89. 

Winchester, 8. 

Willey, Waitman T., in Const. 
Conv. of 1850, 58, 71; in 
Richmond Conv., 126, 140, 



328 



INDEX 



148, 154, 162, 173; part in 
new-state movement, 190, 195, 
221; U. S. Senator, 226, 228; 
Const. Conv., 258, 259, 263, 
264, 268; supports W. Va. 
bill in Senate, 286, 287, 289, 
291, 293, 300. 

Wing, W. W., 283. 

Wirt, County, 6, 192, 233, 
257. 

Wise, County, 261. 

Wise, Henry A., address, 18, 
47, 48; Const. Conv. of 1850, 
57, 58, 60, 61, 97; in Rich- 



mond Conv., 126, 129, 146, 

158, 159, 161, 170, 171, 172, 

176, 179. 

Wood, County, 79, 189, 192, 

195, 196, 220, 233, 257, 274. 

Woods, Samuel, 167, 182. 

Wyoming, County, 5, 193, 258, 

272, ■ 274. 
Wythe, County, 46. 



Yancey, William A., 91, 103. 
Yohogania, 10 



B T)^< s a -^ 






^^•v 

V V 

















>.„^ 










o .„.„' 










C *^,^/r?9^^. ^ A^ /.55^>%r^ T' Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 

<y .-d- o ^^^^^§^^Pl " "^ Neutralizing Agent: Magnesium Oxide 



^^'%. 







Treatment Date; 



Jl/M 1998 
JBBKKEEPER 



PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGIES. LP. 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



